HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.2 JntFireSvsTwinVlyFireDpt (2)
.-
e
.
-1"
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 13, 1995
SUBJECT: Report on Joint Fire Service Delivery Options for Twin Valley Fire
Departments
(Prepared by: Karl Diekman, Dougherty Regional Fire Authority Fire
Chief)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: The Davis Company Report dated December 1994 (An Evaluation of
Joint Fire Service Delivery Options for Twin ValleiFire Departments)
RECOMMENDA T~IN: is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to undertake
discussions with Alameda County, Livermore, and Pleasanton and their
respective labor representatives to develop one or more specific joint
service delivery proposals. The general outline for these proposals is
discussed below. Program specifics as well as financial implications
are discussed in the attached technical study, which was prepared by
Michael Davis, of The Davis Company and would be finalized as part of
the 1995-96 budget process.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
See attached Report.
DESCRIPTION:
BACKGROUND: With the assistance of The Davis Company, Staff has worked with fire officials
in Alameda County, and the Cities of Livermore, San Ramon, and Pleasanton to complete an
evaluation of joint fire service delivery opportunities within the Valley. The purpose of this effort
has been to determine if there are practical ways to either reduce or constrain costs while
maintaining or improving current fire service levels.
The City Managers and Fire Chiefs believe, based upon the attached comprehensive technical
study, that there are ways to improve coordination of the Fire Departments in the Valley while
essentially retaining local control over levels of service and constraining costs.
DISCUSSION: The Davis Company Study focused on fire services in the cities of San Ramon
and Dublin (which comprise the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority), Livermore, Pleasanton, and
Alameda County.
A total of approximately 192 fire fighters and support staff operating from twelve fire stations
comprise the Valley's local fire protection system. The system includes ten municipal fire stations
stations (one to be opened in the Spring of 1995) which house fourteen fire companies and
corresponding squads. Combined fire protection costs in FY 1993-94 were approximately $17.4
million. These resources do not include Lawrence-Livermore Laboratory's fire protection system
nor the Camp Parks Fire Department. Including Alameda County, the four fire departments are
commanded by four fire chiefs plus 21 other chief officers (e.g. Division Chief and Battalion Chief
equivalent positions).
COPIES TO:
oJ
ITEM NO. 8.2
CITY CLERK
FILE~
e
e
The fire departments presently function as separate fire agencies and would continue to do so
under shared service delivery proposals that are under consideration - at least for the near term.
The potential for actual consolidation of the departments into a single agency would be evaluated
later based upon the success of other more modest short range cooperative efforts. Shared
service would build upon existing efforts which include, for example:
Alameda County contracts with the City of Pleasanton to provide fire services to
unincorporated areas within three fire service zones (Remon, Castlewood and Happy
Valley).
Alameda County also shares service responsibility with the State of California,
Division of Forestry at the Sunol station. This station serves the area between Eden
Canyon and Foothill south of 1-580 including the Eden Canyon and Palomares areas.
The station is owned by the California Department of Forestry and partially equipped
by Alameda County and is staffed by California Division of Forestry.
All of the agencies have entered into mutual aid agreements with one another as
part of the greater Alameda County emergency response system. This is typical of
all fire agencies within an urban system..
The City of Pleasantor....s Training Center is also used by the Livermore Department
and Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. A general level of coordination exists among
the otherwise separate training programs within the cities of Livermore and
Pleasanton and the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority.
The Dougherty Regional Fire Authority contracts with the City of Livermore for
maintenance of its fire apparatus.
The Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton have reached an agreement for Livermore to
provide "initial" response to the new Ruby Hills project which is more proximate to a
Livermore station than any station in Pleasanton.
Regional Service Delivery Concept:
The study outlines several opportunities to consolidate specific parts of the fire service
programs while achieving some actual savings, improving service capability, or both.
1. Consolidation opportunities were identified in the following areas:
a. Fire Prevention: Offers opportunity for shared costs. Both Dougherty and
Pleasanton have recently restructured staffing in ways that would facilitate a
joint service effort. The fire prevention staff in Livermore has evaluated ways
to consolidate the Pleasanton and Livermore fire prevention programs.
b. Training: The incumbent in Pleasanton's training position recently retired.
Rather than appoint a replacement, there is an opportunity to share this
function among the departments.
c. Dispatch: The County is considering ways to offer full fire dispatch in the
Valley at a minimal added cost. The Authority's dispatch programs would
essentially be unchanged.
d. Incident Command: Offers the greatest opportunity for potential staff
savings. Slightly less than seven FTE management positions are currently
required. Three to four positions are required under a joint service delivery
arrangement.
2. The major advantages to a shared fire safety response plan are:
e
e
a. It is less expensive (i.e. management and other staff resources can be shared
in ways that achieve either a reduction in total costs or the rate of cost
increases.)
b. Joint fire dispatch, which is ultimately essential for joint tactical operations.
c. A general upgrading of service capability can be more easily achieved (i.e.
joint use of fire companies, boundary drops, common training standards and
joint use of equipment and facilities).
3. The major disadvantage to joint service delivery will be the need for shared decision
making. Provided that costs are shared equitably, it is unlikely that one agency will
benefit considerably more or less than another.
4. The County can benefit from, and has indicated a willingness to participate in joint
dispatch, training and daily shift supervision costs.
If implemented, the shared service delivery proposal will result in a regional service delivery
system within the Valley. This concept assumes retention of individual service
responsibility and accountability by each city, the County and the Authority while
simultaneously sharing in day-to-day service in ways that would:
Improve the service capacity for the system as a whole without detracting from
the capabilities of the individual departments.
Significantly constrain or reduce future costs.
The basis for specific joint service arrangements is three general goals that were set forth
during the study as follows:
1. To establish a single system for emergency fire safety response within the Twin
Valley area that includes a single regional response plan and common standards for
emergency response service. This goal is based on several considerations including
(a) recognition that fire departments already must rely heavily upon one another
during major emergencies; and, (b) catastrophic incidents are not constrained by
jurisdictional borders.
2. To maximize cost effectiveness and efficiency in the provision of service by:
a. Minimizing duplication of personnel, equipment and facilities;
b. Active sharing and joint use of resources (e.g. personnel, facilities and
equipment) and consolidating specific service activities where practical. This
goal recognizes that fire departments are expensive public safety enterprises
that are comprised of "standby resources" that can be effectively shared.
3. Retention of control over community service levels by each jurisdiction. This goal
acknowledges each jurisdiction's responsibility to ensure that an adequate level of
fire protection is provided to its residents and businesses. Under this plan:
a. Each existing fire department would continue to be the primary provider of fire
and emergency medical services within their respective community. The City
Council of each community would retain control over service levels and
funding, and would be fully accountable for both the quality and quantity of
services.
."
e
e
b. Through a system of operating agreements, the critical emergency and
support services of the separate fire departments would be more organized
into a more fully integrated fire protection system.
Objectives
Specific objectives for accomplishing the above listed goals are also outlined in the study. They
are:
1. Training: Functionally consolidate city and county (i.e., for Valley resources) fire training
programs as follows:
a. Designates one department to assume responsibility for development and
management of the training program.
b. Assign one full time training officer to assume principle responsibility for the
program.
c. Set up and implement a curriculum that actively involves fire companies in
joint training activities.
d. Establish a move-up plan for suppression operations to provide coverage
when active training is underway.
e. Incorporate use of Pleasanton's fire training and county (Santa Rita) facilities
for training.
2. Fire Prevention: functionally consolidate ~ fire prevention programs as follows:
a. Designate one department to assume responsibility for development and
management of Valley prevention and code enforcement programs.
b. Formally designate one individual as the Fire Marshal. Assign inspectors from
multiple agencies as needed.
c. Maintain individualized fire prevention and code enforcement programs as
necessary to meet the prevention standards for each community.
d. Assign staff to support each community's planning and building inspections
programs as required.
e. Establish a single point of coordination for hazardous materials control
activities (Note - this is consistent with, although not precisely required by S.B.
1082).
3. Suppression & EMS Operations: establish a single incident response system for
city and county resources as follows:
a. Develop a Master Emergency Incident Response Plan for the Twin Valley
area.
b. Unify incident command. Assign one chief officer per twenty-four hour shift to
direct suppression and station operations.
c. Assign responsibility for Operations Management to one Chief or Deputy
Chief.
.
e
e
~
d. Standardize shift schedules for all fire companies; this is in the process of
being accomplished.
e. Establish a primary and back-up schedule of rotational assignments for
incident command supervision that includes Division and Battalion Chiefs form
each jurisdiction.
f. Dispatch all incidents based on the closet proximate station.
4. Equipment: establish a master equipment utilization and replacement program for
the Twin Valley (Note: each agency is responsible for funding the cost of acquiring
and maintaining their own equipment. Reserve and special call equipment is shared
as needed to maximize utilization and minimize costs to all agencies.).
5. Administrative & Support Services: coordinate human resource activities such as
recruitment and testing for personnel, standardization of apparatus.
6. Local Control: each city, the county and the Authority are to retain control over
service levels and costs. Specific joint services arrangements would be
accomplished through contracts that define (a) costs; and (b) specify levels of
service to be accomplished.
7. Shared Costs: share actual costs rather than charging for services based on value.
Sharing costs implies splitting the actual cost of a service activity, for example,
sharing the actual cost of a training officer. Charging for value assumes that one
agency charges another for services based on assumptions about the market value
or worth of the service that is being shared. Agencies sometimes also strive to
maximize cost recovery by passing on overhead rates that are not routinely charged
within existing budgets. The parties to shared service agreements need to
remember that without a sharing of costs, no one benefits; maximizing indirect
overhead recovery can sometimes be detrimental to the overall objective.
In addition, the City Managers and Fire Chiefs also agreed that it would be in the Valley's interest
to also begin development of a longer range physical plan for fire services that would assume a
higher level of joint service than exists today. This effort would view future fire service needs from
a valley-wide perspective based on an integrated or regional service approach that seeks to avoid
duplication of facilities, staffing and equipment. It is likely that work on the master plan could start
after the joint ventures described above have been accomplished..
Final Repmt
An Evaluation of
J oint Fire Service Delivery Options
for Twin Valley Fire Departments
subnrinM by:
The~y
555 University Avenue, Suite 250
Sacramento, California 95825
916/567-4200
December, 1994
/j--L!O_ 7D 0
, 6J:L
t:.."',;B~~
Il~lS
-: tw [jil\'!:-, COllman\
December 15, 1994
Ms. Deborah Acosta, City Manager
City of Pleasanton
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, California 94566
Dear Ms. Acosta:
We are pleased to submit this final report regarding joint fire service possibilities within
the Twin Valley area.
Our examination of the subject began with a series of working papers that were prepared
by several staff committees that were set up by the [rre chiefs to study joint service potential.
Alameda County was asked to join the project in recognition that the county fire department is
an integral part of the valley's [rre service delivery system.
The fundamental policy question that is addressed by this study is "can some form of
regional service effort within the valley provide the same or better [rre protection that is cost
effective". The answer is yes. The valley's [rre departments already cooperate with each other
in a variety of ways - especially in any kind of major emergency. Yet, there are areas where
the extent of cooperation could be stronger and more consistently organized, and if undertaken
would yield improved service capability that is more cost effective than present practice.
Improved cost effectiveness would occur because current administrative and support
service costs can be spread over a larger base of day-to-day operational activities. In some
service areas such as training and incident command, combined costs should actually go down
over time. Improved service will result from dropping boundaries and merging dispatch
functions to ensure that the closest proximate emergency unit always responds to a specific
incident.
If the cities and the county were to implement the proposals outlined in this report,
specific service functions such as emergency dispatch, training, incident command and others
would be consolidated. There are ways to accomplish these consolidations while retaining
separate fire departments and community control over service levels. The strategy moves a
significant step toward the county's goal for regional service and also retains independence by
the cities in the provision of the service. If successful, a joint service program could also set
the stage for formal consolidation of the departments at some point in the future.
[
\.) ,:.'
Deborah Acosta,
December IS, 1994,
Page 2.
Moving toward a more regional frre response system, while straight forward in concept,
is more complicated in practice. At least four distinctly different labor bargaining units
presently represent the Valley's [rre fighters. Different operating practices separate and apart
from labor agreement issues are presently in place. Some senior managers perform duties across
a range of service functions. Arriving at specific cost sharing arrangements also takes some time
to formulate. A public education effort will also be required to reassure the community that
the purpose of the effort is to improve not reduce service.
While the process of reorganization can be time consuming, the benefits should
significantly outweigh any disadvantages. Numerous communities on the west coast are coming
to the same conclusion and are beginning to make similu changes. Even considering the
potential obstacles, your fire chiefs have expressed strong support for a more unified and
consolidated fIre service for the valley. We agree.
Finally, this study has looked at the question of joint service largely based on existing
service requirements. If it makes sense given current demands, it should be even more
beneficial as the valley grows over time. We encourage you to also consider development of
a master plan for fire and emergency medical services over the long term. This effort should
examine needs from the perspective of the valley as a whole. A master plan will help avoid
duplications of stations, equipment and personnel and should make it easier to complete
agreements such as those for Ruby Hills and joint use of the Santa Rita station.
We have appreciated the opportunity to assist you on this important assignment. Please
call if we can answer any questions or assist you further in your review of this question.
~-,~,-;rC /~
Michael Davis 7 ~
Principal
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary
1
II. Existing Fire Service Delivery System
7
III. Assessment of Joint Service Delivery Options
24
IV. City-County Fire Service Relationships
42
V. Critical Issues Related To Sharing Services
49
Appendices
A. Individual Agency Prof1les
Alameda County Fire Department
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
Livermore Fire Department
Pleasanton Fire Department
B. Comparison of Wage & Benefit Cost
Base Salary
Total Compensation
Engine Company - Staffing Costs
Squad Costs (pleasanton Only)
C. Equipment Replacement Costs
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The question of tire service reorganization has been under consideration within the
Twin Valley area for at least the past eighteen months. The cities of Dublin, Livennore,
Pleasanton, and San Ramon have taken the lead in this effort. During 1993, study groups
comprised of management and non-management tire department staff held discussions on
joint service delivery possibilities while focusing on the areas of incident command, training,
frre prevention and education, and administrative support services. The discussions
concluded there is both opportunity and interest among the agencies for pursuing
consolidations of selected service activities on a case by case basis. The results of this effort
were published in a series of memorandums that were jointly authored by the Valley's tire
chiefs.
Consequently, the project was expanded to include a more in depth assessment of both
fiscal and service related impacts assuming selected service activities are combined. The
major thrust of this study has been to consider opportunities to share services rather than
consolidate the now separate departments into a single frre agency. The Alameda County
Fire Department joined in the study in recognition that the County presently operates one full
time station (and shares responsibility at two other stations - i.e. Sunol and Santa Rita) and
has responsibility for extensive unincorporated areas within the Valley. The following
objectives were developed for this study:
. To identify and evaluate the joint service "options' that may be available to the
cities and the county.
. To prepare an assessment of each city's current fire service program and a
comparison of these programs to the joint service options in the following areas:
1. Training
2. Fire Prevention
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 1.
3. Incident Command and Response
4. Hazardous Materials Response and Enforcement
s. Management and administrative support services (including dispatch
services)
6. Facilities
· To determine the operational practicality and fiscal implications for specific
shared service delivery proposals that have previously been developed for the
Valley and to report those findings to the cities and the county.
The major findings and conclusions identified below are derived from an analysis of
each fire service program. In addition, those parts of the California Government Code and
the Health & Safety Code that are applicable to frre service reorganizations and recent
changes in the California Revenue & Taxation Code applicable to revenues for fire agencies
were analyzed.
Current Conditions
1. The current configuration of service among the cities and the county is typical of what
is found in most of California today. The county has fire service responsibility within
the unincorporated area while the cities assume principal responsibility within their
respective jurisdictions (except that Dublin & San Ramon have a combined fire
department).
2. The current fire protection system includes twelve fire stations to which seventeen
engine companies and squads are assigned during each twenty-four hour shift period.
All stations are physically located within each agency's jurisdiction except one.
County Fire Station No. 8 is located within the incorporated boundaries of the City of
Livermore.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 2.
In addition to these resources, County Station No.7, located in Castro Valley, is
dispatched to events within the Twin Valley; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
maintains two full time stations within its complex; and the Alameda County
Emergency Services Office operates a volunteer station at the County's Santa Rita
facility. (note: Dougheny is presently considering operating a thirdfire station through
joint we of the presently volunteer station oJ Santa Rita.)
3. Altogether, the cities and the county spend approximately $17.4 million annually on
fire protection in the Twin Valley. The combined fire service programs of Dougherty ,
Livermore and Pleasanton are approximately the same size as the present total Alameda
County service program.
The cities pay over 95% of their fire protection costs from their general funds (Le.
general purpose taxes) while the county has earmarked a specific portion of its
property taxes to pay its cost of service.
4. The cities and the county support each other's fire protection needs through mutual aid
agreements. Under these agreements, once a department's resources are committed,
an adjoining fire department commits to provide back-up protection up to and including
full and active participation in the emergency event. In addition, Alameda County
contracts with the City of pleasanton to provide protection to three small county island
areas and with the State of California for services within the Sunol area.
5. Dispatch service is provided by Livermore and pleasanton within their respective
jurisdictions, by Alameda County within Dublin and unincorporated areas and by the
San Ramon Valley F.P.D. within the City of San Ramon.
6. Some sharing of [rre service cost already exists. The Dougherty Authority is the most
significant example. In addition to the Pleasanton/county island contracts, Dougherty
contracts with the City of Livermore for vehicle maintenance; .and the Cities of
Livermore and Pleasanton recently concluded a service agreement for the Ruby Hills
area.
TWin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 3.
7. As incumbents have retired, all three departments have been reassessing opportunities
to streamline administrative duties. This has resulted in: not replacing or deferring
replacement of some senior level positions, reassigning administrative duties to fewer
positions within the fire departments, and in some instances consolidating functions.
Consequently, a considerable amount of transition activity has been underway at the
management/supervision levels during the course of the study.
8. It is likely that the cities and the county can continue to fund and operate their separate
fire departments except for several considerations. First, it is likely that current
economic pressures on local governments will continue. Sharing services is one way
of providing a service more cost effectively. Second, both the quality and reliability
of effective service can often be enhanced through shared service programs.
Potential For Service Consolidations
9. Examination of the four separate frre service programs has confmned that the potential
for joint service delivery is strongest in the areas of dispatch services, training, fire
prevention and incident command. For example:
a. Fire Prevention - Offers opportunity for shared costs. Both Dougherty and
Pleasanton have recently restructured staffmg in ways that could facilitate a joint
service effort. The fire prevention staff in Livennore has evaluated ways to
consolidate the Pleasa.nton & Livennore fire prevention programs. Dougherty
(Dublin & San Ramon) is already a joint program. Incumbents in the Fire
Marshall positions for Dougherty and Pleasa.nton recently retired.
b. Training - The incumbent in Pleasa.nton's training position has recently retired
and the responsibility for training coordination is now assigned to a Battalion
Chief who perfonns this duty in addition to other routine shift supervision work.
The Battalion Chief is assisted by shift training coordinators. Livermore and
Dougherty now provide for on-going training services in a similar manner while
Alameda County dedicates two full-time training officers to this function.
TWin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 4.
c. Dispatch - The County is considering ways to offer fire dispatch to all agencies
in the Valley at minimal added cost. The Dublin & San Ramon dispatch
programs would be essentially unchanged.
d. Daily Shift Supervision (Le. incident command) - Offers a significant opportunity
for improved cost effectiveness. For example, slightly less than seven full time
equivalent management positions are currently assigned. A maximum of three
positions are required under a joint service delivery arrangement. The annual
cost of each position is about $100,000.00 excluding over-time eligibility and
other support costs (e.g. vehicle and other operational support).
10. There is not strong interest at the present time for full consolidation into a single,
regional fire system for the following reasons:
a. The departments do not have a long history of working together, although as
noted below, this condition has begun to change.
b. The cities and the county have not fully resolved which agency will be the
principal service provider as the unincorporated area urbanizes. Ironically, this
factor argues in favor of a stronger Valley area service delivery system.
c. A long range master plan of frre service needs for the Valley has not been
prepared. Without such a plan, it is difficult for the cities to contrast current
resources with future fire service obligations.
11. Many of the advantages of consolidation (fmancial & operational) can be achieved
through discrete joint service delivery undertakings (Le joint fire prevention). In turn,
such endeavors in other parts of California have set the stage for future consolidation.
12. The major advantages to a shared fire service delivery program are:
a. It is less expensive. Management and other staff resources can be shared in ways
that achieve either a reduction in total costs or the rate of cost increases.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 5.
b. Joint fire dispatch which is ultimately essential for joint tactical operations.
c. A general upgrading of service capability can be more easily achieved (Le.
training, equipment and facilities)
13. One major operational change that is required by joint service delivery is the need for
shared decision making. Provided that costs are shared equitably, it is unlikely that
one agency will benefit considerably more or less than another.
14. The County can benefit from, and has indicated a willingness to participate in joint
dispatch, training, and daily shift supervision costs.
15. A consolidated agency will offer greater opportunities than exist at present to
emphasize and improve standards for prevention services within the service area.
16. Recent state legislation (Le. S.B. 1082) has required considerably more unification and
standardization of hazardous materials pennitting and control measures beginning in
January 1996. Local coordination within the Valley, as part of a broader countywide
effort, will most likely be necessary.
The consultant was also asked to examine options regarding city-county fire service
relationships. This subject is discussed in Section IV which also includes an additional list
of conclusions and recommendations related to this topic.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 6.
II. EXISTING FIRE SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM
This study has focused on fire protection services that are provided by local
governments. Fire protection within the service area is actually provided by seven political
jurisdictions including local, state and federal agencies. Dublin and San Ramon (which
comprise the Dougherty Fire Authority), Livermore, Pleasanton and Alameda County
provide local fire protection. In addition, "state responsibility areas", mostly wildlands, are
protected by the State of California. The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory operates a frre
department within the federal lab complex.
A total of approximately 192 fire fighters and support staff operating from twelve fIre
stations comprise the Valley's local fire protection system. Combined frre protection costs
in FY 1993-94 were approximately $17.4 million. These resources do not include the lab's
fire protection system. The cities' emergency frre and medical response system (nine
stations and fourteen frre companies and squads) is about the same size as the Alameda
County frre protection system (eight stations and ten fire companies).
Including the county, the four local departments are commanded by four frre chiefs
plus twenty-one other chief officers (e.g. Division Chief and Battalion Chief equivalent
positions).
The four departments predominantly function as separate fire agencies although there
is presently some sharing of service responsibilities among them. For example:
. Alameda County contracts with the City of pleasanton to provide tire services
to unincorporated areas within three small tire service zones (Remon,
Castlewood, and Happy Valley).
. Alameda County also shares service responsibility with the State of California,
Division of Forestry at the Sunol station. This station serves the area between
Eden Canyon and Foothill south of 1-580 including the Eden Canyon and
Palomares areas. The station is owned and partially equipped by Alameda
County and is staffed by CDP.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 7.
· All of the agencies have entered into mutual aid agreements with one another as
part of the greater Alameda County emergency response system. This is typical
of all fire agencies within an urban system.
· The City of Pleasanton's Training Center is also used by the Livermore and
Dougherty departments and occasionally by the county. A general level of
coordination exists among the otherwise separate training programs within the
cities of Livermore and Pleasanton and the Dougherty Authority.
· The Dougherty Fire Authority contracts with the City of Livermore for
maintenance of its fire apparatus.
· The cities of Livermore and Pleasanton have reached an interim service delivery
agreement for Livermore to provide "initial" response to those parts of the new
Ruby Hills project that are more proximate to a Livermore station than
Pleasanton's closest station.
It is fair to conclude that the departments have undertaken some, but not all, of the
steps that would be needed to fully and effectively integrate the fire and rescue operations
of the departments under emergency conditions. This situation is recognized by the fire
chiefs who have supported this project with the intent of achieving an even stronger level of
coordination and joint effort than currently exists.
Table 1, on the next page, is a summary overview of the combined fire protection
system that is represented by the four departments.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 8.
Table 1
COMPARATIVE DATA
CITY AND COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENTS
ALAMEDA
CITIES COUNTY TOTAL
1. Size of Service Area (sq. mi.) 56.9 465 521.9
2. Service Area Population 159,367 119,630 278,997
3. Assessed Valuation (bilUon $) $11.9 $5.02 $16.92
4. Number of Fire Stations * 9 9 18
5. Total Staffing 165.5 136 301.5
6. Number of Fire Companies/Squads (per 24 hr. shift) 14 10 24
7. Cost of Fire Operations (1993-94) (million $) $15.8 $15.9 $31. 7
* Includes the County/CDF station
Table 2, on the immediately following page includes a more comprehensive overview
of the Twin Valley fire departments.
Repon text continued on Page 11. The balance of this page
is intentionally left blank.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 9.
(.fJ
t-
Z
W
:E
~b:
~~
C\JC:W
WWC
-J~W
CJ a:
..,>-
j::uu..
z>
WW
(!J...J
<e...J
~
z
~
t") C
~
t") ~ ~
N ,....
.....
co e
~
~
::::J
C') 0
c\I
.....
'0
j "0 ~
"E E ~ Cl.l
ll! m m(/)
em ~U)m
oC)C)ic:e
'=cc ac
,c'~"i =>~
UCl.lD: I.nlE
~~o~[E
QC)~i:i)~8
-
.....
-
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
In - .
co"Ci1;'
In O.:a:
c\l'PCi!
In ~>t$
. ~~l!!
B c......
.:! 6
c - E
g!jJ!
c~a:
j[
Q.U)
g c
- ~
~l2.
c
8l
~
c::
"""
.0
~
C
C\l ,... v C\l
en ..... v .....
.....
rD
,...
q
.....
v
at
.....
....
t") In c")
~
z
~ CQ ~ t")
!
~
an
rc v ~ 'lit
i
~
,...
ri
CQ ..... C') '" In .....
..... N t")
en ctt
..... In
~
,..:
.....
.,.
C\l 0 0 C\l E\i ;
g
Ul
.....
.,.
e
"0
C
o ~
l!! c:
c: ~
8 fR
:J
o
Z
~
c
m
l ~
'6
~
u
c
e a
~ ~
~ j
::::J Q.
'0 fR
~ ~
u 0
z
c; .. ~ C\l e
g ~ g
ri ~ ~
to ~ fB
CIi j Q.
9l
~ ~
c: 6
8 Z
B:
~
o 0 ~
Q) "0 en
-c: ~ ..: ~
~W;~~
a Q) m a
CD - i5. =>
"5 [C)~
g: 8E ~ e
~ ~ u:
'5 '0
i ... E ...
~.B ~.P3
~ ~ ~ ~
Q) g
8 ~
~ m-
E~o.S.
~ 13 ~ Ul
co _ ~
Ul u. a '6>
~ g' ... c
~._.Bw
0. oS; E
~~:!
v c ..... t")
CQ ..... 0 0
v 0 C\l C\l
!1
'2
:J
Cl.l
~ I
2 Cl.l
..... g
... Ul .m
~ ~ ~
~ ..... <
~ ~
CQ
In ri
fB
m
~ !i
en
In N
In
..
~
In CQ
a:i liS
In rsS
In
,...
~
~
g~
en
1='1
u. t")
Ie.
v 1ii
% 8
e. C)
C) .s
c e
E ~
en 0
j9 i
~ ~
..(
u..
~
E
r:;
:g
a.
1;;
...
o
r::.
J:
l:
o
E
m
0:
I::
III
In
'C
I::
III
I::
ii
8
E
o
.t:
fi
III
III
j
E
III
::!
.-..
...
III
I::
o
N
III
....
;;::
1il
U
III
a.
...
E
o
CD
=
-
.w.
t"
III
P
5
u U
l: ~
5 .u
~ ~~
U -ilj
: i; ".
.s 166
'15 "5.....
>o15'C'C
"0"" III III
OIll~lIl
.cUi_~
!~:g~
.!!!u III 0
.!!llll.E I::
01;;; OlE .
.!!!...i"" 6
a:I::l_""-
'Is c. m co Ii
'CcoB15::l
lDII!lE=.!
.!!l.....:gsa..
b."'llIl1J'O
g15aE~
~!l !Il ~ 0
<lIJa:I.....1!
u......r::.CIi...
c:.e=l'l15
Bl::ji:-
~~~';;;'"i
"6r::."6;i'tl
1:"'1:01::
~l:~u.2
~8~g'~
III m lIl.... C
.!= E.., II' co
u..bu..lD6
1il c 1il a..
1::- l: 0 C
.Q~O~li
0l1::"Blc::'il
{P. i3{P. 86
;.,.U ~u .
t:1Ilt:lll'6
lD"O lD 'tl 't:I
.c:lDr::.lDC
~E~Eo
omomJ:
0<0<.-
;,;\...: oj rj .; Iri
J!!
o
z
..
~
t
~
i
Page 10.
DEPLOYMENT OF RESOURCES
Each community's fire service program is discussed below. Tables 3 and 4 on the
following pages, include an overview of the current deployment of emergency response
personnel and equipment (Table 3) and a detailed listing of current staffing for each fire
department (Table 4). Appendix A includes a comprehensive profile of each fire department.
Dougherty Fire Authority
The Dougherty Fire Authority's service area is approximately 12.0 square miles.
Table 5 is a current Table of Organization for the department.
The Authority was formed in 1987 to assume service responsibility following the
reorganization of a community services district that had previously provided fire protection
to San Ramon and Dublin. Rather than form two separate fire departments, the cities
concluded it would be more efficient and cost effective to retain the single fire department
configuration. The Authority is governed by a board of directors that is comprised of San
Ramon and Dublin City Council members.
Consequently, the Authority is a single employer and functions as one department.
The service area population is approximately 45,000 which is the combined population of
the two cities.
All fire protection and prevention services are provided from two stations located at
7191 Donahue Drive and 9399 Firecrest Lane. The Authority has recently decided to open
a third station by sharing the present Santa Rita Station with Alameda County. The
Authority's administrative offices are located on Firecrest Lane. The department is staffed
by 56.5 fire fighters, managers and support staff. The total opcratine expense for all fire
services during 1993-94 was $4.76 million. The department is presently undergoing staffing
adjustments to open the Santa Rita station and add firefighter/paramedics to one of its fire
companies.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 11.
en
w
(.)
c:
:::)
o~
ffi~
M c: ~
W LL. aJ
...J 0 e:
CO LI..
~ !Z ~
W~
::ij
~~
...J
c..
W
C
..
U.
".;-:.:.:.:.
:mm~m .. .....
U .. ..... I
I .. ..
.... :- Iii ..
..... . .. Iii
....;.-..... ! J! I e .. s
~ m
U ... -! c9 .. .. .. -:.
.. .. ] .. 1 i -
.. c9 .. "1b "1b !::
! 0- .; &j ~ &j lS a::
'.'. '. 5 .. .!. I I I I I
" . ~ ... ... ... ... ...
U
. --.
:~!~tr
.... I .....
I .. .....
! .. ..
:~!;: . :- Iii ..
! .. ,
1 f e ~ I t
.. i
"'~ ... c9 .. 1
.. .. .. I i
IllS .. III .. 'Ill
j .; .. lS ~ a::
! w
&j I .!. .!. I I
- - -
'a .....
..
'; ..
.... ::
I .. .....
.8 .. i
. .. ..
..~ .. =- ..... ;;;;
S J ] ;;;;
f .. .. t
8 e g .. i i
N c9 ~ :: 1
.. ] .S 1
.. .!l .. 'Ill f'
j " ,; ~ l:l: lS ~ a::
:!::~:::::i: - I I I I I I
:;: ~ - - - - - N
'Ii' -
:=:::::;:::: .. ~
U. :=
;; ]I i
':;:i~~{~ 'Ii' e !
..........- ... ..
I 't' :: .. I
.. I 'il ,;
U .. I :- .. e :l!l
U 'j :: ~ 0
.. I t
~ e ft' 1 '" ~ ..
IS .. > .. i li
; c9 .. .. .. . ...
~ .. Cloo .. a ~ g 1 .!I ...
.:::::i:;::: .. .. 'Ill .. 'Ill e . ..
.. lS IE
'::::::::~:; i $ .; l:! :I cB 8 ~ ~
'.'. .. I I I I .!. I I I I
:::::::;:i: ~ ... - - ... - - N
:!'~ ..
. i ..
i .. :;
",,0:. 1 .!l
0 N ..... If:
.. 0;- Il'! II'
S I ~ lS a:
.. =- ~ ~
.::: . .. - - -
j .. ...
..',<C .. I e ..
';: I g t
."l:'l a N c9 .. . i j
}el .. e .. I i ..
.. lC .. 'Q .. ..
,A_ ll. lo;:
~ ,; ~ ~ .Q e
::~ ~ ~ I I U ~ lC
N - - - N
t
,;':; l .. i :;
..... I ..
.::~ - ~ .. 'ii" 'Ii' "1b 1
I .. I lS ..
is :- ~ ~ w lC
uI . 'il ;; - ... ...
::: ~ .. I e 1 ;; B
ig .. g !
a .. .. i
- 8 IS .. .. i .. :;
.. IS .. .. otl ~ 1 ..
.. .. 'Ill 'Q i
"8 j .;. ~ cB lJ. ~ 12 "Ill
5 lS ~ II:
.;.;-:.,.;.: &l I I .!. .!. - ... N
"'.;::::::> .... ... ...
. ,( 11
. :.. .
.
'i .. 11
lS < :.
'C: .. .
~ .B i .. ..
.. .. <
i ~ II I ~
ca:: <
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
"n. : t
... '. ;> t 6
u N ~ ..... ii
- .. ..
I ~ "J .
,. :- iii I I
. ..
., ,. i l' I e 1 ..
:::::::::; :: j
:::::::::~ i
1 II .. c9 .. 53 .. .. ..
.... ~ .. ! 1 e .t ..
.. .. 'a 'Ill
): ! .;, &l !::
i -=- ~ U &! II:
\ l:! I I
- ... ... - -
:!'~ '8
.".. ca:: i
's 1 ~
';', - a
ill ... .. rf ..... . 2
.. ~ ;
I ! ..
. .. I :: .t "" ~
S i .. 11 .. B
E 1 .8 !.
i ..... = s E !
Wl d : .. a ~
,.,.~. I II; .. 'Ill .. ~ .. ...
! 'Q ..
8 B .... ,;, ~ .. &! Ii:
13 ~ I 8 ~
i - ... "J - -
I! .....
j = i 1 ~
.. ..
'~':':'. J a i 1 f
0 ..
... I 'Ii'
.'::::::::: Ii ..... ~ It
I .. 'Ii' :lil
.. .. I - -
. ! ." = ~ .. !
,. ! .. ;; =
i e .. ! ..
J ~ l ! u ..
... 11 .. .. " E ~
.... .. is .. .. .. I '" 1
u .. .. 'Ill 'Q .. II'! .. i
j .; ~ ~ g i 'Ill
.... l:!
!~it~~; :0 ~ I I I I I lC
... ... ... - ... - ... ...
::
..
::::::i:~: i 1 i j
.. i ..
.. ~ o!f
I ." B W' .....
.... ! d ~ 'Ii' 'Ii' ! I!
. ~ ~ u:;
i :I I .. :! ... ...
u e .. .. !
IS i2 ! l t
... :l '" .. 1 E :;
'I .. ! .. .. '" -tI ] ..
.. .. 'Ill .. 1 ..
.. lJ. ~ i
j otl .. g .. 'Ill
.,' ~ ~ w "'" ~ ~ lC
I I I I
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
:,= i
'. =- i S
.':'A< 1 '1
'~ ,2 I e ..
.. i r!!
. ..... 1 i ,j
\~ I . 8 .. 'Ii' e
:E 1 ~ 'f :5 -=- ...l lC
"Ii: . ... :! ... ...
-! .. g .. .. 's
! s. II .. l
,,z a ~ ! 0 II
N .. "8 .. .. 1:: .:.. " Ii ;;
.. .. . .. .. '" ~ ~ ,; ..
.. ~ .. .lill 'lill .. l ..
; .. .. ~ .. "Q lo;:
i ,; ~ $ .. e
':: ~ w Vl ~ U ~ II:
.. I I I I I
W - - - ... ... - - -
;:: . =
i ..
;:.... J 1 .!!
. ::~:~::::: ! ..
mm~@ 0;- i i f
:::;:;::::: .... .. 'Ii' ..
t~~~t I .. .. I :i u::
! '" := ::
:~:=~;:::: .. .. '; I - -
.i ...
}f} .J! e 1 ..
'" .B t
;~mj:im .;; . '8 ..... .. Ii
; e .. .. :;
.. .. .. 1 ] i ..
..... .. 'i .. 'Ill 'Ill g 1 .. i
., j Ill: ,; .. .. l:l: g'l 'Ill
~ ~ ~ &l
: &l I I I I lC
... - ... - - ... ...
'f 1
:.. .
. .
.. "2
j lS < ..
.. . ...
.. .. 'Il
.. .2 i .. <
~ ~ ] J! J ~
Page 12.
,,:..
"Zl
..
t
~
...
!::
""
'"
'!.
..
.Il
i
!
-I
..
]
1l
..
..
':/
..
t:
~
, ~
.. ~
.j s
; :I
11 ~
~ .C
'II .
:; ~
.. :l!l
.e .
~ l
... t'
8 ..
!:: ."
.. ..
. ..
.. t:
,j ..
.. ~
:.. ..
'Il ]
~ S i
UI
. .
.
... :
.
.
0\ 0\ 0\ ~ M
"l
-
fIf)
=;
-
~ M ~ - .... fIf)
- - ... - ... ..; ~
:is
UJ
I-
en
>
en
z
~O
Z-
-l- . :l ~ 110 .... fIf)
u.(.) ... . ... M ~
~ u..W
<Cl-
UJ 1-0
...I en a: :2
m ....Q. S
<C Zw i;a ]
I- wO: l:l ~
0:- 'e
o:u. ~ .S
::>> 'a "s-
o It: 1
(.)~ - M \C - M - ... ... ... .... ..; .S!
... ... .... .... S
-I ...
..
<C ~ '-
~
> ...
... ~
z .a,
- ~ ~
~ ~
I- .~ .~
~ ..s
l:l ~
:!t ~ ]
I
'S ~ "il CJ: 00
~ t >.. .t;
... ! :i I ~ ~
0 1;; i
i It:! e 3 tl
~ It 1
'E 1 "e ~
is . I u ., .5
..
... g "d I '1iI :a ... 00 c
.. .. .< 'C c: .S!
t5 ... .. j s Iii .'::
... ] :i
.!l .!l " It: ~
e 0 0 1 IS .. :I r;s
:; 0 'E .E 3 . .
Ii: c i ! g g ., ~
0 ! g 0 . :!t c l! J! 1 '! 1::
'1iI - ::2 'S 'j i e ~
e .E a e .2 eo ! e e r:
It .! II: ;J Ii: II: := := :> *
Q i-' U CIl
* *
Page 13.
1Win Valley Fire Serna Study
TABLE 5
1994-95 ORGANIZATION CHART
DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
cmEs OF DUBLIN AND SAN RAMON
I
I JOINT POWERS BOARD
..
.
I I
ASSISTANT CHIEF I CHIEF EXEClITIVE OFFICER I
EXEClITIVE
OFFlCER
I FINANCE: I PERSONNEL
I
FIRE CHIEF'(!) I
~ ADMINIST'RA11VESECRETARY(t) I
ADMINIST'RA11VE ASSISTANr (1)
I I
OPERATIONS I
FmE PREVENTION
I
I I I I
A SHIfT B SHIfT C SHIfT
FmE INSPECfOR (2.5) BATTALION BATTALION BATTALION
CHIEF CHIEF CHIEF
I I I I
o..ERJ:AI.. FIRE CAPTAIN (") FIRE CAPTAIN (") FIRE CAPTAIN (")
ASSISTANT
(0.5) I I
FIRE ENGINEER (9) FIRE ENGINEER (8) PIRBENGINEER (10
I I
FIRE FIGHTER D (1) FIREPIGHIER I (2)
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 14.
A unique feature of the department is that it serves two cities. Some of its special
features are due to this condition as follows:
. Dispatch - This support service is provided from two dispatch points. The San
Ramon Valley Fire Protection District receives and dispatches 911 calls that
originate within the city of San Ramon which is located within Contra Costa
County. Alameda County handles 911 duties for incidents that originate within
the City of Dublin.
. Fire Prevention \Plan Check - Within the City of Dublin, plan check and
inspection permit requests are routed through the building department which
serves as a central point of contact for all construction related activities. Within
the City of San Ramon, contractors are referred directly to the fire department
for plan check and permit applications.
. The Fire Chief, and therefore the fire department as a whole, has a dual
reporting relationship to both cities. This condition exist within other regional
fire systems and serves to demonstrate that this situation can exist satisfactorily.
Livermore Fire Department
The Livermore Fire Department provides fire protection services primarily within the
City's boundaries. As indicated above, the Lawrence-Livermore Federal Laboratory also
operates a separate federal fIre department for lab facilities and property. As noted earlier,
pursuant to a recent agreement with Pleasanton, Livermore will provide first responder
assistance within the new Ruby Hills development which is within the City of Pleasanton.
The combined service area within the city is approximately 21.9 square miles. The
city's population is 61,785. Table 6, on the following page, is a current Table of
Organization for the department.
All fire protection and prevention services are provided from four stations located on
East Avenue, Rincon Avenue, Bluebell Avenue and Cordoba Street. The department is
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 15.
TABLE 6
1994-95 ORGANIZATION CHART
LIVERMORE FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE CHIEF
I
I
SUPPRBSSION,OPBRATIONS
DEPtTI'Y FIRE
CHIEF
.
I I I
BunDINO FIRE PREVBN110N DMSION CHIEF DMSION CHIEF DMSION CHIEF
OFFICIAL (I) FIRE MARSHAL (I) SHIFT A SHIFT B SHIFT C
. . .
I . I I I
SENIOR FIRE INSPECIORS FIRE CAPTAINS (4) FIRE CAPTAINS (4) FIRE CAPTAINS (4)
BunDIN:} (3)
INSPBCTOR I I I
I
I FIRE ENGINEERS FIRE ENGINEERS FIRE ENGINEERS
HAZARDOUS (4) (4) (4)
BunDINO MA1ER1ALS
INSffiCTORS SPBCIAIJSr I I I
FIREFIGHTER (6) FIREFIGHTER (6) FIREFIGHTER (6)
NOlES:
· Traiaiag. .taUoaJyUidemaiaaa_c:e..dpenoa.eI/wau:II..itylda......re.,.jped to:> Shit Comma.den.. .dditio.a1 d.liea.
· Cae vacu.t Fim;pter p'litioa b=iag CIInied.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 16.
staffed by 54.5 fire fighters, a manager and support staff. The total operating expense for
all rrre services during 1993-94 was $5.45 million. Livermore is also considering a staffing
realignment to add paramedic service capability to its engine companies.
There are a number of features about the department that differentiate it from other
departments within the immediate area. For example:
. The city's building safety department is a unit of the fire department. This has
afforded the city with strong coordination between building and fire code
enforcement.
. Two other fire departments (e.g. Alameda County and the federal lab
department) presently operate within the boundaries of the city.
. Day to day command of fire station operations in Livermore is primarily
provided by Division Chief positions (Le. incident commanders) who work a
modified shift schedule. Alameda County incident commanders work a
traditional 56 hour per week shift schedule while incident commanders in
Pleasanton and Dougherty work a forty hour per week schedule. Battalion
Chiefs serve as incident commanders at Dougherty, Pleasanton and the County.
. Fully staffed rrre prevention and public education units are located within the fire
department as is the case in Alameda County and Dougherty. In Pleasanton,
these services are shared between the fire and building departments.
Pleasant on Fire Department
The combined service area for the Pleasanton Fire Department is approximately 23.0
square miles. The city's population is 52,585. Table 7, on page 17, is a current Table of
Organization for the department.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 17.
TABLE 7
1994-95 ORGANIZATION CHART
PLEASANTON FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE CHIEF
r 5BCRBTAllY I OPPICB ASSISTANT (oS) I
I I
ItDMINIS'JRA'I10K' I IUPI'Ok T I
... PDlB Rl.8WN1JON IIlRIIICB OPEIlAnoNS
_~ OoIof ........ CIiof _Clio'
(1) (1) (1)
I
I- HAZAJU>OUS SHIn' 'IRAINlNJ
NA'I1!RlAUI COORDINAlORS
SPl!aR.JST (llp....IAM-')
I STAnoN _I STAnoN #Z STAnoN '"
- PDlB INSft!C'roR (2) lU!S1lR YES (12)
r I I I r I
BN:lIN!. lIQUAD BN:l1N!. lIQUAD 'lRtx:K SQUAD
T I I I T I
CAPTAIN LIBlTIBNANT CAPTAIN UBlTIBNA.NT CAPTAIN UBtm!NA.NT
(3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)
I I I I I I
BN:ll NI!BR PIIU!P1OH'l!!R BN:lIMBBR PIIU!P1OH'l!!R ENJINEBR PIIU!P1OH'IER
(3) (3) (l) (3) (3) (3)
I T I
I'IIU!I'JIJ H'l!!R PIIU!P1OH'IBR PIIU!P1OH'l!!R
(3) (l) (3)
NOles:
1. Elimin.tion of the Fire Marlha1I'1 positico bu provided the; opportunity to ..iJD. thCle dutiCl aDd rcsponlibilitiCl to a Batlalion Chief.
2. EIil:nination of the Training Officer'l position hu provided t= opportunity to ..iJD. thClC dutiell .nd rcsponlibilitiCl to . Batl.lion ChicL
......}IIw/\loIuJ\&'Io<q
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 18.
All fire protection and prevention services are provided from three fire stations. Two
are located east of 1-680 on Railroad Avenue and Santa Rita Road. The third station is
located adjacent to Stoneridge Mall west of 1-680. The department is staffed by 55.5 fire
fighters, managers and support staff. The total operating expense for all fire services during
1993-94 was $5.66 million.
There are several fea~res which distinguish the Pleasanton Fire Department from the
other valley departments as follows:
. Squads - The department assigns a two person squad unit, in addition to a three
person engine company, to each of its three stations. The squad unit is a
different service delivery philosophy that relies on smaller pieces of apparatus
staffed by two firefighters. The department deploys an combination of traditional
engine company (3) and squad units (3). By comparison, for example,
Livennore, Dougherty and the County each rely solely on three or four-person
engine/truck companies.
. Training Facility - pleasanton owns and operates a full scale training facility with
class rooms and a six story bum tower. This is an important asset to the Valley
as it is the only training facility capable of supporting most day-to-day fire
company training requirements. The facility provides training capacity in such
areas as fire attack, driver training, engine testing, flammable liquids, live fire
training, aerial operations, vehicle extrication, and others.
. Administrative Duties - general administrative and special duty (Le. equipment
maintenance, training, and fire inspection/code enforcement) are combined with
shift supervision work for the battalion chief positions. Battalion Chiefs in
Pleasanton and Dougherty work a traditional forty hour week and are on call for
incident command duty after nonnal working hours.
Two new fire stations are being planned to open within the next three to five years.
Construction is expected to begin in 1995 on a station to serve the new Ruby Hills
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 19.
developments. A fifth station has been funded (construction cost only), however, a date for
its construction or opening has not yet been set.
Alameda County Fire Department
The Alameda County Fire Department, a dependent rITe protection district governed
by the Board of Supervisors, serves the unincorporated areas of Alameda County. Some of
the county's fire protection responsibilities are also provided through contracts with cities,
other special districts and the California Division of Forestry.
The county's entire service area is comprised of approximately 465 square miles and
includes a population of about 119,000. Table 8, on the following page, is a current Table
of Organization for the department.
The county fire department currently staffs eight full time fire stations. A ninth
station, the Sunol station, is a California Division of Forestry Station that is located on Sunol
Road. This station is operated by the Division of Forestry under a cost sharing arrangement
with the county. Seven of the eight county stations are located outside of the Valley in the
formef Eden and Castro Valley Fire Districts that were consolidated with the county wide
fife protection district in 1993.
In addition to the CDF station, two other county stations serve the Valley area. Station
8 (fonnerly known as the County Fire Patrol) is located within the City of Livermofe at
1617 College Avenue. This station provides the primary Of first engine response fOf
incidents within the county area. Station 7, located in Castro Valley at 6901 Villareal,
provides the county's second engine response capability and is assigned to respond to
incidents when required. During the course of this study, the county has been engaged in
discussions with Valley fire agencies (including the Lawrence Livermore Lab fire
department) directed toward reaching "automatic response" agreements.
The county's appropriation for fire service in fiscal year 1993-94 was approximately
$16.7 million. County costs for fire protection in the Valley is comprised of three
components. These include the cost of (1) a single engine company at Station 8, (2) contract
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 20.
T AS LE 8
1994-95 ORGANIZATION CHART
ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FIRE COMMISSION
Seven Member Advisory
FIRE CHIEF (1) Commission
SECREI' ARY II
(1) f
r I
FIRE SUPpORT SERVICES SUPPRESSION DIVISION
DIVISION DEPUTY FIRE
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF (1) CHIBF (1)
I SECREI' ARY I r SBCREI'ARY I
I (1) I (1)
I I
FIRE MARSHAL BAlTALION CHIEF BAlTALION CHIEF BAlTALION CHIEF
(1) SHIFT A SHIFT B SHIFT C
(2) (2) (2)
I T T ,
DEPUTY
FIRE MARSHAL FIRE-CAPTAINS FIRE CAPTAINS FIRE-CAPTAINS
(3) (10) (10) (10)
T , I --.
DIRECTOR OF FIRE ENGINEERS FIRE ENGINEERS FIRE ENGINEERS
TRAINING (1) (11) (11) (11)
I -, --. T
TRAINING OFFlCEIl FIREFIGHTER FIREFIGHTER FIREFIGHTER
(1) (18) (18) (18)
Notes:
1. One Fire CaDtain floats and performs administrative duties.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 21.
services provided by CDP and the City of Pleasanton, and (3) a share of the cost of Station 7
in Castro Valley. These costs have been estimated based on an analysis of 1993-94 county
budget allocations as follows:
. Station 8 $ 960,696
. CDP Contract - Sunol 435,000
. Special Fire Zones 124,750
TOTAL $1,520,446
The above amount represents a minimum estimate of county costs and does not include
general county overhead cost nor a value for support from Station 7. It is likely that actual
county fire protection costs for the Valley range from a low of $1.52 million to a high of
$1.7 million annually excluding general county overhead. This estimated range assumes an
allocation of 10% of Station 7 expenses to the Valley plus an allocation of approximately
$65,000 per year for apparatus replacement.
Dispatch Services
The dispatch function is a critical resource for all public safety services. Cities and
counties vary considerably as to how this service is provided. Two models or approaches
are most typical. The service is either provided directly by the fire department, or by a
combined police & fire public safety dispatch center.
Combined public safety dispatch systems are generally regarded as more efficient and
cost effective due the ability to maximize equipment and personnel costs. Within the Valley,
police and fire dispatch services are combined for each jurisdiction. However. there are four
separate dispatch centers. not including the federal lab facility. that serve the Valley. These
are Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton.
Modem fire safety dispatch methods rely heavily on automated dispatch protocols in
order to minimize response time to an emergency. In other words, a predetermined
configuration of equipment and personnel is automatically dispatched depending on the type
Twin Valley Fire Service Study .
Page 22.
of incident that is reported. The first fIre unit to arrive at the incident makes an assessment
and if necessary modifies the original dispatch order. In the meantime, the desired response
to an incident, based on predetermined service level requirements, is automatically
dispatched to the incident.
Since fire departments rely heavily on mutual and automatic aid, the present Valley
system still offers potential for fragmentation, duplication and lack of coordination from the
fIre service perspective. Furthermore, a common dispatch system is highly desirable, if not
mandatory, in order to implement a single response plan that combines multiple fire
departments.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 23.
III. ASSESSMENT OF JOINT SERVICE DEliVERY OPTIONS
An important part of the assignment for the consultant was to work with the fire chiefs
to determine the highest priorities for sharing service responsibility and to assess the
operational and fiscal implications of each proposal.
METHODOLOGY
A number of steps were taken by the consultants and fire department staff to develop a basis
for defining and evaluating the initial proposals. These steps included:
1. FIre Resource Questionnaires - At the beginning of the assignment each fire
department completed a Fire Protection Resources Questionnaire. The questionnaires
were then analyzed by the consultants to gain a thorough understanding of the
resources each agency dedicates to fire protection and how the frre service programs
are organized.
2. Briefmgs With Chief Executives - An initial briefing was held with the fire chiefs,
city managers and the county administrator to discuss expectations and concerns about
joint fire service programs.
3. FIre Department Factual ProfIles - At least two individual interviews were held with
each fire chief and interviews were also conducted with city and county staff who
manage training and frre prevention programs. These interviews focused on detailed
discussions about operational requirements and the potential for joint service delivery.
A comprehensive factual profile of each department's fire protection system was then
prepared and reviewed with each fire chief (see Appendix A). As already noted, the
overview of the Valley's current fire service delivery system (see preceding Section
II) is primarily derived from these profiles. In addition, the profile information was
used as one basis for assessing both opportunities and implications for sharing service
responsibility between the fire departments.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 24.
4. Wage & Benefit Analysis - A comparison of each agency's wage and benefit structure
was also completed and is included in Appendix B. This information applies to labor
contracts that were in effect as of August 1, 1994. Since then, two of the four
agencies (the Dougherty Authority and Alameda County) have reached new contracts
with their labor representatives.
The wage and benefit data was utilized in two ways. First, the data was examined to
determine if wage and benefit practices might present a barrier to shared service.
Second, it was used to calculate shared service costs.
5. Apparatus Replacement Projections - Each department identified its major equipment
and rITe apparatus items. A standard replacement schedule and cost evaluation was
then applied. The equipment replacement cost projections are included in Appendix C.
6. Joint Service Goals & Objectives - Three work sessions were held with the rITe chiefs
(meeting in joint session) to discuss goals and objectives for specific joint service
activities. An "Outline of Shared Fire Service Opportunities" was prepared by the
consultant and served as an initial agenda for these work sessions.
7. Fiscal & Operational Analysis of The Options - Staffing requirements, organizational
reporting relationships and various operational requirements for each of the joint
service options were refined during the work sessions with the fire chiefs.
Subsequently, the consultants completed an assessment of the likely fiscal and
operational implications of each option.
8. City Managers/FIre Chiefs Work Session - During November, the fire chiefs and
managers met with the consultant to review and discuss a draft of this report.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 25.
CURRENT COSTS AND REVENlJFS
Prior to undertaking an assessment of the shared service options, current costs and
revenues were examined more closely. Wage related costs are normally the largest segment
of a fire departments budget. Capital equipment replacement costs are normally the second
largest single cost center for ongoing expenses.
Tables 9 and 10, on the immediately following pages include a description of both
revenues and expenses for 1993-94. Expenses have been organized into service function cost
centers. Revenues are organized into major revenue source categories.
REGIONAL SERVICE DELIVERY CONCEPI'
At the beginning of the assignment, it was agreed that the cities were not ready at the
present time to consider a full scale merger of their fire departments. The possibility of a
merger was not, however, discounted as a possible long term future goal.
However, a regional shared service delivery concept has evolved out of the discussions
of the fire chiefs. The concept assumes retention of individual service responsibility and
accountability by each of the separate jurisdictions, yet a sharing of service responsibility in
ways that will:
. Improve the service capacity of the Valley's fire protection system as a whole
without detracting from the capabilities of the individual departments.
. Significantly constrain or reduce future costs.
In order to define the extent of potential joint service activity that might be considered,
three general but significant goals were set forth. These goals are:
1. To establish a single system for emergency fIre safety response within the Twin Valley
area that includes a single regional response plan and common standards for emergency
response service. This goal is based on several considerations including (a) a
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 26.
TABLE 9
OPERATING REVENUE PROFILE
TWIN VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENTS
Actual 1992-93
.f)Bn(;ilBR.Ti:::::::::::~:1::1:::1::Wfm::::~tl;:::::::~!%~I~:{:::~@:::~~,:'::::~:::'!:.:::::::::I:::1::j!~1:::::!~:~:!:!:![%t:%::'~i::,:::.:@:;;;~
San RamOD Cc1Dtribution
Dublin Contribution
Fcca/a.argca
Capital Impact Fcca
Inten:at Income
Other Revcnue
$2,630,947
1,848,698
47,031
55,044
10,714
69 459
$4,661,893
Subtotal
.tWiUi6ltB1:::::~::U".:::::::~~!!::~!~!::::::;:;:{!::~:::::!::~:~;;!:::::::I~~!t::;:::!~:::!:;!:~:1::::::::;::t:::::",::'.:~~:~.:~!~::~:~~:;1:;:::;::::;:::;:!":"',:::;;j:
Gcncral Fund
EMS Rcimbunemcnt
Contract Revcnuca
Fee Rcvcnuc
Othcr Revcnuc
Subtotal
rIiEASANroR1;1:1~:::.:!:::~mmm::~::~:::~~:.::,:::::1:::::::::::::'~'::~:~:::::~~;:!I::::m::!:!;:~:::~@::;;:::::;::m:~:~::~':"::::::m:::::::!!l:I:n:':'~."
Gcncral Fund
EMS Rcimbunemcnt
Contract Rcwnuca
Feca/Olargca
Other Revcnue
Subtotal
ALAMBDA;COlJ1ttt':,.... jY'XEffifitm:ID\YONLY\ ::,::,:::,:
Property Tuca
Other
5,110,532
12,000
o
119,558
9,110
$5,251,200
5,451,439
6,500
130,500
31,500
3,000
$5,622,939
$2,732,752
1,907,954
67,000
60,000
4,500
22000
$4,794,206
5,192,715
12,000
o
239,115
9,110
$5,452,940
5,484,139
8,000
134,500
34,000
3,000
S5,663,639
1,600,534
26,414
1 626,948
'."'.'.::.\$15;S'2~a6.
Subtotal
:tiRJ.Njj.'T6'tAtS}Wn::l:l~:~::":)::'
.. ,.,..,..,........
..
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ j ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~i~~~if:~~~~~]jjf:[[~~~~~~~ j~ ~ ~~~. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j /j~~~ ~~~~~~~!jjjj~j j;f~~j~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~:~:
Actual 1992-93
:AI1U1:BBA:.c6um~":.:mtaltf!;n.m:ISDjUllO';::';':.::::~'.::::.:!'
Property Tax
AB-SlSDAF
EMS
Utility &: Uccnae Fcca
Carry-over
Other Revenue
Subtotal
: :;:;:;:;;:;;:::::::::~:::
:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.
1,902,474
9,617,015
o
o
1,928,964
231 7
$13,679,680
.. .. ... ..
..............$. ..1.....5..' .'.".'.'.'1. ........1. ...85...........
<< .~.. U~.. ..
· Budgets integrated in 1993-94; revcnue for Twin Valley DOt acparately identified.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
13,388,681
4,389
800,000
358,462
1,617,624
546 667
$16,715,823
Page 27.
TABLE 10
OPERATING EXPENSE PROFILE
lWlN VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENTS
1992-93 Actual
1993-94 Budget
~pq~',~\f;j:t~iii)I'ii:':iii~:~\:jl~:~~;;;;;m:i;!::'"!:jii:!:"",i::,."'j:,':!i,:".",j:!;iji;i;'j,::::ji::j;::::j.::j]:.:,i:,i:::::;):m::::
Administratioo
Prevcntioo
Training
Su c:ratioos
I Su~ctal
i1~aJtit:jj:::j:::":l:;iI';;"i,,:;'il:ill!@};~~~:m::;;'~ij:;i:::',,'.:,,::ii::i';:;':i:i:::m!)::::ii:iii::ijj~i:::::~::j:jj@fii~:(4:1jj:
Administration
422,259
218,960
included in aupprcasiOD
4,014,939
$4,656,158
373,860
240,510
included in aupprcasiOD
4,144,236
$4,758,606
Prcvcotion
Training
SupprcasiOD/Opc:ratiooa
I Su~ctal
PE~H.:,!:jj:jj:':j:ji:,:j::::ii::;j::j:jiH:;:)j:j~::j:j!::;i!:",'!:ili'i:;j,!'i:;!j:j'j,.'jj:::::::i:::,::'::::j'::j:'::::::'::::"::::::.:;::;'ijjijj:jj:j;iii:!j
Administration
Prevention
Training
SupprcasionlOoc:rations
I Su~ctal
~J:)xgco~,'(EBF:)&:::smi&Lfi)j.:::,:;::::jj::',).:,::.;j.::'::::::j::
CDF contract fa Sunol Station
Station #8 Annual Cost Eaimate
Pleasanton Contract (special fire zones)
I Su~ctal ·
tl~:'TQX~.:jj..,::,,;j:::::n:;ji::j:.:.:::!.::::i:.:j:;:::j,:j::jt::jj:j!.:':':jjj!i:jj.:::,,:i'j:U;:jj::::::j/:,'(............j:.j:j:;:::i:i:j:!j.:::.:.,..,.:.:::;:::j;ij7.ot$~:j :)?if'? :.:...:::,:jj::,:::::~tl.3~;(}j:l
189,400 185,870
610,310 652,830
114,020 124,590
4,337,470 4,489,650
$5,251,200 $5,452,940
^
218,263 233,076
646,889 705,783
765,s74 757 ,502
3,992,213 3!JGl,278
$5,622,939 $5,663,639
433,451 435,000
932,715 960,696
\ 118,810 124,750
$1,484,976 $1,520,446
1992-93 Actual
1993-94 Bud!ct
.~A;,:m~::&.Ki-ljf.tHIQ:ttm?IgiiQID:i:ijt:::::.
Operating Expenses
Capital Fxpcnses
Su~ctal
11,945,002
315,430
$12,261,'332
14,768,701
475,000
$15,243,701
· See Page 22 for discussion of county colts.
IMIkJII...._z
"]Win Valley Fire Service Study
Page 28.
recognition that ftre departments already must rely heavily upon one another during
major emergencies, and (b) catastrophic incidents are not constrained by jurisdictional
borders.
2. To maximize cost effectiveness and efftciency in the provision of service by:
a. minimizing duplication of personnel, equipment and facilities;
b. active sharing and joint use of resources (e.g. personnel, facilities and
equipment) and consolidating speciftc service activities where practical. This
goal recognizes that fire departments are expensive public safety enterprises that
are comprised of "standby resources" that can be effectively shared.
3. Retention of control over community service levels by each jurisdiction. This goal
acknowledges each jurisdiction's responsibility to ensure that an adequate level of fire
protection is provided to its residents and businesses.
A conceptual outline for a Twin Valley Regional Fire Protection System is depicted
on Table 11 on the following page. Under this plan:
. Each existing fire department would continue to be the primary provider of fire
and emergency medical services within their respective community. The City
Council's of each community would retain contain over service levels and
funding, and would be fully accountable for both the quality and quantity of
services.
. Through a system of operating agreements, the critical emergency and support
services of the separate frre departments would be organized into a more fully
integrated fire protection system.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 29.
i!]
?-
m
in
z
o
f3
~w
::Jb
c.8:
:: ...oJ w
~ ~ g;
1-11.
~ fu ~
Uz
~Q
uffi
c::
~
~
z
~.
CQ
ClII:
0 = :l
! Cl
rE U
e
0 f--- . H
::3 8 I 8 ~
=
rz. 8 HI ClI
0 = ~I j
8 ...... Vol ~ ~
! .$
ClI
~ ...
ClI c: oS
Vol i ~ U ...
So u
ClI
ClI ~
c:::loo 'a
ClI .!i
~ 0" 0
g 0 ~ u
! . . . .
U
~ !
l
~ 0 - ~
8 U
.. l!:! .
!s r:: .~ j
8 c .---
8.-- e :3
~ ~,g oo.!l =
j U
a.!! e
z ~ i ...... U
~ ~ g aUa .~ U
o.~ ~
~ Z c ~ '=:e S ~ 0 ~I
a ~ .!Q
~ I;lO .;:: ~ i = "5 .$3 8
~ ~ '1: ...- ...- i-- c:::l ~ '6
Do. ClI'U "0
e ,too. .B g ...
tIJ a ClI u;s:E ell V,l
o '8 8 .a g ~ ...
~ elI'e V,l .l:l . ~ a oS
.~ c:: "0 ~= ~ .g ti
l'i: g ~ u tIJ ell
r:: ...."0 := u ~ t:I
VI . u .g '8 c:;
~ ~ 5 ti ell 0
- U '--- ~ U :c u
c:::loo_
0 ~ tJ~ . . . .
u !5 I--
~ VI g
CQ ~ ~
~ ell
C -
~ ;J
"0
:E
= "0 .eo
c:;
- ... .~
"0 =
u -=
c::l . a -
" c::l ='
= <
1.g ~ .; :l
... = "0
VI ell . c:; U c:;
ClII: ~~ ~ &. 0 5 ClI
r::~~ ~ U ~I ~
- u
00 c:: .$3 ~
i-- Uc:::l ~ 0
ClII:ClII:CQ c::l u
CQOei ... 0 0 u ClI "0 c:
c::l.... .... ;g
=i5c U'" ~ ::s :< u
"Os &. :s2
O:Jrz. 13 Vol ~ g ~ u
:J<O i-- C .= u
c:l c:::loo c:;
o~c - ::s c:: ClI -
C ClII: V) V) "O&. e ~
u ~ en 0
-< ~ ...
rz.o .l:l . u .( =
= ~ :cc:: ii)
. . . . .
l
j
s
~
%
.s.
Twin VaUey Fire Service Study
Page 30.
Specific objectives for accomplishing the above listed goals are outlined below:
1. Training: functionally consolidate city and county (Le. for Valley resources) fire
training programs as follows:
a. Designate one department to assume responsibility for development and
management of the training program.
b. Assign one full time training officer to assume principal responsibility for the
program.
c. Set up and implement a curriculum that actively involves fife companies in joint
training activities.
d. Establish a move-up plan for suppression operations to provide coverage when
active training is underway.
e. Incorporate use of Pleasanton' s fire training and county (Santa Rita) facilities for
training.
2. FlI'e Prevention: functionally consolidate ~ fire prevention programs as follows:
a. Designate one department to assume responsibility for development and
management of Valley prevention & code enforcement programs.
b. Formally designate one individual as the Fire Marshall. Assign inspectors from
multiple agencies as needed.
c. Maintain individ\lali7.ed fife prevention and code enforcement programs as
necessary to meet the prevention standards for each community.
d. Assign staff to support each community's planning & building inspection
programs as required.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 31.
3. Suppression & EMS Operations: establish a single incident response system for city
and county resources as follows:
a. Develop a Master Emergency Incident Response Plan for the Twin Valley area.
b. Unify incident command. Assign one chief officer per twenty-four hour shift to
direct suppression and station operations.
c. Assign responsibility for Operations Management to one chief or Deputy Chief.
d. Standardize shift schedules for all fire companies; this is now in the process of
being accomplished
e. Establish a primary and back-up schedule of rotational assignments for incident
command supervision that includes Division and Battalion Chiefs from each
jurisdiction.
f. Dispatch all incidents based on the closest proximate station.
4. Equipment: establish a master equipment utilization and replacement program for the
Twin Valley (note: each agency is responsible for funding the cost of acquiring and
maintaining their own equipment. Reserve and special call equipment is shared as
needed to maximize utilization and minimize costs to all agencies).
5. Adminh.trative & Support Services - Coordinate human resource activities such as
recruitment & testing for personnel, standardization of apparatus,
6. Local Control - Each city, the county and the Authority are to retain control over
service levels and costs. Specific joint service arrangements would be accomplished
through contracts that define (a) costs, and (b) specify levels of service to be
accomplished.
7. Shared Costs - Share actual costs rather than charging for services based on value.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 32.
Each of the shared service proposals (Items 1 - 3 above) was then evaluated to examine
its practical advantages, disadvantages and cost implications. Separate profiles of each
function are shown on the next several pages. Each profile includes a list of the principal
service activities that are involved, a description of current staffIng arrangements for each
jurisdiction, an assessment of current cost, a discussion of the shared service arrangement,
and a list of advantages and disadvantages including cost implications.
The balance of this page is intentionally left blank.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 33.
Twin Valley Fire Prevention Programs
Service Activities:
Plan Checking & Inspection
Public Education
Fire Code Permit Issuance
Arson Investigation
Development Review & Evaluation
Hazardous Materials Disclosure
Current Program Starrmg:
. Livermore:
Program is supervised by a full-time Fire Marshal (Battalion
Chief). The City's Building Safety department is also
functionally assigned to the fire department. Includes 3 full-
time sworn fire inspector positions.
· Pleasanton:
Incumbent Fire Marshal (Battalion Chief) recently retired.
Program supervision reassigned to a Battalion Chief who also
performs station supervision (Le. incident command) duties.
Includes 2.0 full-time sworn fire inspector positions.
. Dougherty.:
Incumbent Fire Marshal (Battalion Chief) recently retired.
Includes three non-sworn fire inspector positions. Program
supervision reassigned to the Fire Chief. Program supports
two cities.
. Alameda County:
Program supervised by a full-time Fire Marshal (Battalion
Chief). Includes three full-time sworn deputy fire marshal
positions.
Current Cost:
TOTAL
1993-94
$439,024
240,510
652,830
705,783
$2,038,147
Alameda County
Dougherty
Livermore
Pleasanton
* 1994-94 costs have been reduced due to retirements and reassigtll1U!nts.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 34.
Joint Service Potential:
. Option 1 - Dougherty and Pleasanton contract with Livermore or County for overload
inspection and plan check requirements.
. Option 2 - Consolidate Dougherty, Pleasanton & Livermore fire prevention programs
under the direction of the Livermore Fire Marshal. Assign current inspectors to the
combined program. Purchase excess hours needed from the joint program. Share cost
of the Fire Marshal.
Potential Benefits - Option 2:
. Some, although not extensive, savings in program supervision (Le. Fire Marshal)
costs. Unit costs should not increase.
. Unifies application of hazardous material disclosure regulations and enables more
effective implementation of SB 1082 requirements by January 1996.
. Overall upgrading of program management quality.
. Existing codes are substantially similar. Should lead to greater standardization in the
application of fire and building safety code requirements.
. Improves access to knowledgeable fire inspectors for peak permit/plan check needs.
. Unifies and strengthens public education programs.
Potential Disadvantages - Option 2:
. Current staffing includes both sworn and non-sworn fire inspectors.
. Need for special handling of fees to maintain multiple revenue recipients.
· Differing prevention and inspection philosophies.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 35.
Twin Valley Fire and EMS Incident Command
Service Activities:
On-scene Command and Control of Emergency Incidents
Coordination of Daily Station Operations
Development and Management of Incident Command System
Current Program Stafrmg:
F. T. FI'E
Alameda
Dougherty
Livermore
Pleasanton
6
3
3
3
6.00
1.50
2.00
2.25
15 11.75
Equivalent FTE's result from the pract;a of combining Incident Command and other Atbninistrative Duties and
is the total of positions that are assigMd to Incident Command duty.
Current Cost (includes stafrmg cost ~ without overtime ~ only):
TOTAL
$ 595,764
290,383
305,035
314,168
$1,505,350
Alameda County
Dougherty
Livermore
Pleasanton
Joint Service Potential:
Create a single emergency incident command and control system for the Valley by placing
all stations under command of a single chief officer on each twenty-four hour shift for
coordination of both daily station operations and emergency incident response.
Twin Valley Fire Serna Study
Page 36.
Potential Benefits:
. A significantly higher level of coordination among emergency units would occur.
· Standardization of response protocols and practices.
. Ensures that the closest proximate unit is dispatched to an emergency incident.
. Some direct financial savings for three departments (Dougherty, Livermore and
Pleasanton) could be achieved. The current chief officer staffmg configuration is nine
positions. A combined incident command system would require a minimum of three
positions, and a maximum of six positions, depending on other daily administrative
requirements for chief officer's. Consequently, savings could range from
approximately $303,000 annually to a maximum of $606,000 annually.
Potential Disadvantages:
. Departments relinquish some control over daily station operations.
. There is some risk that benefits may not be precisely the same for all jurisdictions.
However, the level of risk is the same as would occur under automatic aid agreements.
Other Considerations:
· Is dependent on common dispatch system.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 37.
Twin Valley Training Programs
Service Activities:
Scheduling & Coordination of Company Exercises
Development and Procurement of Training Curricula
Maintenance of Training Records
Assessment of On-going Training Needs
Current Program Starrmg:
.
Alameda
.
Dougherty
.
Livermore
.
Pleasanton
Uses a variety of training facilities, predominantly the San Leandro
facility. Two full-time training officers are presently assigned.
Training coordination and suppression
Battalion Chief as an additional duty.
facility .
duties are assigned to a
Use Pleasanton training
Training coordination and suppression
Division Chief as an additional duty.
facility .
duties are assigned to a
Use Pleasanton training
Training coordination and suppression duties are assigned to a
Battalion Chief as an additional duty. Owns and operates a full
service training facility.
Current Program Cost: (Supervision staffing only)
Alameda County
Dougherty
Livermore
Pleasanton
$198,587
24,199
34,320
36,845
$593,951 *
TOTAL
*
Current cost is equivalent to approximately 3.0 Battalion Chief level positions.
Page 38.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Joint Service Potential:
. Utilize Pleasanton Training Facility as the principal training center.
. Designate one department to undertake development and administration of a Twin
Valley fIfe training program.
. Designate one full.time training officer to manage a consolidated training program
(without County participation) or two full-time training officers (with County
participation) .
Potential Benefits:
. Significantly increased capability of fire departments for joint emergency incident
operations.
. Improved utilization of training resources.
. No significant savings, but no added cost. Utilizes existing resources (without County
participation in program supervision).
Potential Disadvantages:
. None
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 39.
OTHER JOINT SERVICE OBJECTIVES
Consolidation of the training, fire prevention and incident command functions will
result in the greatest overall increase to service capacity and will also yield some cost
efficiencies. Consequently, these areas should be given the highest priority for possible
service integration. In addition, there are other service functions as well as strategic
planning needs that can be addressed jointly.
1. Dispatch - As noted earlier, there are four different providers of 911 dispatch service
at the present - Alameda and Contra Costa counties plus the Livermore and Pleasanton
Police departments. This service will ultimately need to be integrated (either through
technology or by selecting a single service provider) in order to maximize the
effectiveness of combined fire command and control system for the Valley.
The Alameda County Fire Department is presently working with the County Sheriffs
Office to develop a proposed alternative that will consolidate the dispatch functions for
fire and EMS incidents.
2. Master Plan - It is generally recognized that the Twin Valley area will continue to
grow thereby increasing the demand for frre and EMS services significantly. There
is no agreement on the pace or configuration for growth. Nor is there agreement on
which jurisdiction will ultimately serve emerging areas.
These conditions, in addition to overall questions regarding cost effective service
delivery, emphasize the need for a single master plan for fire service within the Twin
Valley. Fire and EMS needs are dictated largely by structural and population factors,
not governmental jurisdiction. Consequently, development of a longer range master
plan will help define facility, equipment, and human resource needs into the future.
An overall master plan will serve each jurisdiction equally in that it will focus attention
primarily on fire service needs rather than jurisdictional factors.
TWin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 40.
3. Master Equipment Replacement Schedule - Appendix C includes a projection of
costs assuming that all current equipment is continued in service until replaced on a
standard schedule. As such, Appendix C representstheoretica1 future costs. Analysis
of the schedule has also demonstrated that there are opportunities to share both
equipment and costs in the future, especially if incident response is consolidated.
4. Other Adminiqrative Services - If the departments begin to function as part of a
regional fire protection system, there will also be opportunities to share certain
administrative costs such as recruitment and selection of personnel and the purchase
and supplies and small equipment. However, the cost benefits in this area are minimal
when considered in isolation from the other potential joint service ventures.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 41.
IV. CITY-COUNTY FIRE SERVICE RELATIONSHIPS
Alameda County has two types of fire protection obligations within the Twin Valley area.
First, it shares services with the State of California. The State has the primary responsibility
for "State Responsibility Areas" (SRA) within all counties. The SRA's are mostly wildland
areas. Alameda County has entered into a joint service arrangement with the State at the
Sunol station to provide combined county and state services to areas that are urbanizing.
Second, counties have primary fire protection responsibility in unincorporated areas that are
not otherwise served by special districts or the State of California. Alameda County meets
this responsibility in two ways as follows:
a. Some services are contracted to others. This includes, for example, county island
contracts such as those in Pleasanton, where the service is contracted to the City of
Pleasanton Fire Department.
b. Most County ftre service is provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. The
County Fire Department is a depended district governed by the Board of Supervisors.
County fire services are provided within the Valley, from three stations. These are the CDF
station located in Sunol, Station 8 located on College Avenue in the City of Livermore and
back-up response from Station 7 (located in Castro Valley). Due to extreme distances (over
35 miles from Station 7 to the most easterly parts of the County's service area), Station 7
is not available as a primary or first responder for most incidents that occur in the Valley.
Funding and Costs for County Services
The County spends between' $1.5 and $1.7 million annually for fire protection in the Valley
(excluding the cost of dispatch service and general county overhead). This cost is
summarized on pages 22 and 28 of the fire study and includes the following:
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 42.
.
Station 8 Operating Expenses
CDF Contract Expenses
Special Fire Zone Contract Expenses
Subtotal
$960,696
435,000
124.750
$1,520,446
.
.
.
Plus: 10% of Station 7 Expenses
Plus Equipment Replacement Expenses (Overhead)
Total
96,070
65.000
$1,681,516*
.
* Excludes general County overhead expenses
Most, although not all of the County's cost is offset by revenue derived from within the
Valley. The 1994-95 County budget does not isolate property tax revenue that is collected
from the Valley and allocated to the fire department. In prior years County fire patrol funds
were separately identified in the County budget. However, this revenue is no longer treated
separately since the formerly separate county districts were consolidated and the Special
District Augmentation Fund was eliminated in 1993. However, in 1993-94 these revenue
sources generated approximately $1.6 million.
City and County Service Options
There are fundamentally three options available to the cities and the County for
reorganization of fire services in the Twin Valley. These are:
a. The cities could join the Alameda County Fire Protection District and merge
their frre departments with the County's department.
b. The County could choose to contract some or all of its service responsibility to
the cities.
c. The County and the cities may enter into joint service arrangements with each
other that realign service responsibilities and deploy stations and equipment in
ways that maximize service to both unincorporated and incorporated areas.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 43.
These options are discussed below. The study of Twin Valley Fire Services focused
primarily on Option C.
Cities Annex to or Contract With the FIre District (Option A)
Mergers of small fire departments into larger fire protection systems can be cost effective
and provide the same or higher levels of fire protection. Fire departments necessarily deploy
expensive equipment and firefighters. These resources are often in a stand-by mode. Fire
emergency and medical service technology is increasingly sophisticated as well as costly.
In addition, management of stations and the provision of support services (e.g. dispatch) can
be spread over a larger number of stations, than is typical for most small to medium fire
departments.
The fire district mechanism is used extensively in California and in other states to provide
fITe protection services. Major changes were made to fIre district laws in the late 1980's to
make this structure more conclusive for providing urban services and for serving multiple
jurisdictions. For example, separate fire service zones can be set up within the framework
of a fITe district. Each zone can include different service levels and funding sources.
Districts may be governed by appointed or directly elected directors.
However, upon entering into larger systems, individual cities can lose direct control over the
quality and quantity of the fire protection. Local control over the service is a major
principle of municipal government. Local control is often given such a high priority that a
full merger or consolidation with other jurisdictions is not deemed desirable. This is, at
present, the condition in at least some parts of the Twin Valley. During this study, there has
not been any indication of interest for fully merging the Valley's fire departments beyond
the configuration that already exists.
In lieu of joining the fire district, the cities and the regional authority could also contract
with the district. This option is currently under consideration in the City of San Leandro and
is also used in numerous other parts of the state. The approach permits the contracting
jurisdiction, for example a city, to retain more control over services and service levels
through the provisions of a contract for which specific performance is required. The current
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 44.
San Leandro proposal assumes that San Leandro will continue to retain ownership to its
facilities and equipment. All service responsibilities and the existing staff of the fire
department is proposed to be assigned to and fully integrated with the county fire
department. The city would pay a specific amount for fire protection based on the specific
level of service it seeks to acquire.
County Contracts to Cities (Option B)
The County could also contract with the cities on a selective basis for fire protection service.
For example, the County could enter into contracts with both Livermore and Pleasanton for
these cities to provide fire protection in the extreme eastern and southern parts of the
County's service area. There are several advantages and disadvantages to this course of
action.
The most significant advantage is service related. Due to extreme distances, County Station
7 cannot effectively serve in any "first alarm" role except as a back-up to Station 8. Also,
due to distance, the back-up role of Station 7 requires between fifteen and twenty minutes
to execute.
A second advantage would be the integration of Station 8 with City of Livermore and
potentially Lawrence Livermore Lab resources. When deployed under a common
supervision and dispatch mode, the operations of Station 8 would become fully integrated
with other Valley (primarily Livermore) resources. Any confusion over dispatching "the
closest approximate" emergency unit would be eliminated.
There are also both service related and financial disadvantages to this course of action
primarily for the County. The major service related disadvantage is that by contracting its
Valley area fire protection responsibilities to individual cities, the County's established goal
of more regionalized rITe protection is not furthered. The fiscal disadvantage to the County
is that its direct overhead cost for management and support services is not lessened by
contracting the service, and a portion of the economies the County achieved from the prior
consolidation of county fire districts would be lost.
Twin Valley Fire, Service Study
Page 45.
A complication also exists related to the COF station. Current law does not permit COF to
contract or share its responsibilities with agencies other than counties. This question requires
legal research before this course is pursued.
J oint Service Arrangements (Option C)
Options A and B, as described above, would shift primary service responsibilities from one
agency to another. Under these arrangements either a city assigns its fire protection
responsibility to the County managed fire district, or the County Fire Oepartment assigns a
part of its responsibilities to cities. These are the most traditionally relied on approaches to
organizing fire protection, but they are not the only approaches.
Option C relies primarily on approaches that involve "joint or shared" service delivery. This
has been the main focus of the Twin Valley Fire Protection Study. Both cost and service
related advantages can be achieved. These opportunities are briefly summarized below and
are discussed more fully in Section ill of the draft report beginning on page 24.
. At the most minimal level, common service standards can be established and the cities
and the County can commit to a strong program of automatic aid. For example,
station locations can be set based on a regional strategy rather than individual city
need. Equipment, staffing, training and response protocols can be standardized. This
level of effort requires an area wide master plan at a minimum. Care must also be
taken to ensure that one agency isn't overburdened at the expense of another.
. Fire prevention services within the cities can be joined through the contract for service
approach. This would constrain and in some instances reduce cost while maintaining
a high level of fire prevention management within the Valley.
. A common dispatch function is essential for combining station operations. The County
is presently studying ways to combine dispatch service with the Valley at minimum
added cost to the cities. The cost associated with this potential change will determine
whether or not it is a viable course of action.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 46.
· By instituting a "single incident command" system, the cities and the County can
essentially drop present boundary restrictions to emergency responses as well as share
and reduce incident supervision cost. The net impact will be improved service delivery
at the same or lower cost depending on the cost associated with combined dispatch.
· Effective joint training is essential if the cities are to undertake joint operations in the
future. Joint training is at present sporadic and loosely coordinated.
Conclusions
With regard to city and county fire service relationships, existing conditions support the
following conclusions:
· The cities and the County should formalize and strengthen their fire service
relationships within the Valley through automatic aid and contract for service
arrangements.
· The cities should pursue options for integrating fire dispatch functions primarily
because a common dispatch point is highly preferable for joint fire and EMS
operations. A County dispatch proposal should be seriously considered if it is proven
to be cost effective.
· Station 8 should become functionally integrated with the City of Livermore's fire and
EMS resources. This should be achieved either through a contract for service
arrangement or an automatic aid agreement between Livermore and the County.
· The County should relocate Station 8, preferably to a location outside of the City of
Livermore. The primary reason for this relocation would be to provide more
proximate service to the unincorporated area. There are at least two and probably
more options for accomplishing this relocation. For example:
a. The County could unilaterally relocate the station.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 47.
;~
b. The County and the City of Livermore could jointly construct a new station in
a location that would most closely meet both city and county needs.
. The cities and the County should strongly consider constructing a single fire and EMS
system for the Valley. It is not essential that the service program be managed by the
County or a particular city. It is in all of the agencies' best interest that a Valley fire
protection system be highly integrated and responsive to both city and County needs
and that the cities and the County be directly involved in and responsible for service
level decisions and funding. This course would move toward the County's goal of a
more regionalized fire protection system; would provide improved fire protection
within the Valley; and would most likely achieve real cost efficiencies.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 48.
"
7""
V.
CRITICAL ISSUES RELATED TO JOINT SERVICE DEliVERY
There are a number of critical issues related to joint service delivery in the Valley.
These include:
. How would benefits and costs be shared?
. What mechanisms are most appropriate to implement shared service?
. Do existing wage and benefit practices present barriers to shared service
delivery?
Shared Benefits and Costs
The benefits of a regional service delivery system are largely service related although
there are some cost efficiencies that can be achieved as well. Specific benefits and
disadvantages related to each joint service options were discussed in Section m. Methods for
allocating shared costs are discussed below.
1. Training - The presence of the Pleasanton Training Facility is a significant benefit to
all departments. Pleasanton chose to construct the facility without participation from
surrounding cities and does not expect to be repaid for its investment in land and the
facility. However, it is reasonable that ongoing operations and maintenance costs
should be shared as part of regional training program that benefits all participants.
It is recommended that the cost for staffmg (i.e. the Training Officer), routine
maintenance and utilities, plus training supplies and resources be shared by
participants. Assuming that all staff will utilize the facility to the same degree, costs
should be shared based on the number of safety employees employed by each agency.
2. Incident Command - The complexity of incident command is largely a function of the
number of companies or squads that are on duty at any given time. Assuming county
involvement in an incident command system, a total of seventeen fire companies and
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 49.
squads are on duty during each twenty-four hour shift. Each Pleasanton Squad should
be treated as one-half of a fire company.
It is recommended that the cost of a regional incident command system ( including
staffing and command vehicle expenses) be shared based on the number of fire
companies. It is likely that each jurisdiction can absorb the cost of its share by
assigning specific Battalion or Division Chief positions.
3. Fire Prevention - A shared fire prevention program will consist of three major cost
centers which are: program supervision and related costs, plan check and inspection
hours incurred and special support costs such items as specialized consultants in
hazardous materials and other technical areas.
It is recommended that the entire cost of a joint fire prevention program be reduced
to hourly rates for program management (Le. fIre marshal, including administrative
support) and inspectors and that costs be incurred as program services are used.
Similarly, one time costs for specialized, outside technical assistance would be incurred
by the agency that acquires the service.
Joint Service Agreements
There are two fundamental approaches that can be utilized to implement the shared
service programs that are outlined in the preceding section.
A joint powers authority model similar to the approach that is presently utilized by
Dublin and San Ramon could be used. However, this model is more suited to the creation
of a single entity or one fIre department. As such, it is probably not an appropriate
mechanism in this instance. Instead, separate joint service delivery contracts are suggested.
The regional incident command program could be implemented through an expanded
automatic aid agreement. Shared fire prevention and training arrangements could be
consummated through contract for service agreements.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 50.
Wage and Benefit Barriers
Assuming that the joint service programs are implemented as contractual service
arrangements, then reconciliation of differing wage and benefit practices is not required as
it is for more formalized fIre department mergers.
An analysis of actual wages and benefits paid for safety personnel in the Twin Valley
indicates that on a total compensation basis, pay practices are quite similar. Consequently,
when sharing services on a contract basis, each agency's cost should be similar.
However, there are signifIcant differences that must be taken into account. For
example, Dougherty's fire inspectors are non-sworn rather than sworn positions. While this
condition already exists, it would be viewed differently and held to a different standard by
employees in a shared service arrangement. One way to overcome this condition is to assign
work based on technical background rather than sworn vs. non-sworn status. Another
solution would be to assign inspectors predominantly to their home jurisdiction. The latter
approach will most likely be preferred.
Twin Valley Fire Service Study
Page 51.
APPENDIX A
INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENT PROFILES
TWIN VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENTS
ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
AGENCY PROFILE
The Davis Company, Twin Valley FlTe Agencies
Appendix A . 1
AlDnuda County Fin Department
AGENCY PROFILE
ALAMEDA COUNTY
1. GENERAL OVERVIEW
1.
Agency Name & Address:
Alameda County Fire Department
1426 164th Avenue
San Leandro, CA 94578
(510) 670-5850
(510) 276-5915 (fax)
2.
Chief Administrator:
William J. McCammon
3.
Governing Board:
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
4.
Governing Agency Director:
Steve Szalay
Chief Administrative Officer
1221 Oak Street, #555
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 272-6984
(510) 272-3784 (fax)
II. SERVICE AREA
1. Service Area
2. Service Population
3. Serve territory outside
primary boundaries:
I
,
4. Assessed Value
461 Square miles
109,629
No
a. Land
2,608,421,886
3,347,174,055
$5,955,595,941
b. Structures
c. Total Assessed Value
5.
ISO Rating:
3
The Davis Comparry, Twin Valley rue Agencies
Appendix A - 2
Alameda County Fire Department
III. FINANCIAL DATA
1. Revenue history.
Revenue Sources 1992-93 1993-94
Property Tax 1,902,474 13,388,681
AB-8 9.617.015 4,389
EMS 800,000
Revenue and License Fees 358,462
CarTY..over 1,928,964 1.617.624
Other Revenues 231,227 546,667
Total Operating Revenue 13,679,680 16,715,823
2. Expense history.
EXPENSE SOURCES 1992-93 1993-94
Total Operating Expenses 11,945,902 14,768,701
I Total Capital Expenses 315,430 I 475,000 I
Total Expenses 12,261,332 15,243,701
3. Twin Valley Financial Information. *
EXPENSES IN TWIN VALLEY Im-93 1993-94
Station 8 Expenses , $932,715 $960,696
CDF Contract 433,451 435,000
Special Fire Zones 118.810 124,750
TOTAL EXPENSES 1,485,240 1,520,446 II
REVENUES IN TWIN VALLEY
Property Taxes 1.600.534
Other 26,414
TOTAL REVENUES 1.626,948
* Source: Alameda County - County Administrator's office. Expenses do not include Station 7 or overhead costs.
Twin Valley revenue integrated with countywide district revenue for 93.94.
The Davis Company, Twin VaUey Fire Agencies
Appendix A - 3
A/amedo County Hre Department
IV. ORGANIZATION INFORMATION
1. Staffing overview.
Classification
Full-Time
1
2
6
1
1
3
1
31
33
S4
3
136
Fire Chief
D uty Fire Chief
Battalion Chief
Fire Marshal (Be)
Director of Training (Be)
Depu Fire Marshal
Training Officer
Captain
En . eer
Fire Fighter
Secretary
Total
2. Projected Retirement of Personnel.
Personnel by Class 1994-94 1995-96 1996-97 1991-98 1998-99
Chief
Assistant Chief
Deputy Fire Marsball 1
Deputy Chief 1 1
Battalion Chief 2 1 1 1
Captain 2 3 3 2 1
Lieutenant
Engineer 4 2 2 1 2
Firefighter 1 2
The Davis Company, 7Win Valley FU'e Agencies
Append" A - 4
Akunedo COUnI] Frn Department
3. Staffing overview for Twin Valley area.
Captain Engineer Firefighter Total
Station 8 3 3 6 12
CDF 0 3 3 6
Station 7 3 3 3 9
The Davis Company, Twin Valley FITe Agencies Appendix A - 5
A/Qmedo COUIIIy Fin Departnunl
v. RESOURCE DEPLOYMENT
1. Assigned Staffing by shift for shift personnel.
POSITION ASSIGNED MJNIMUM
Captain 10 10
Engineer 11 10
Firefighter 18 11
Total 39 31
2. Staffing configuration for engine companies.
POSITION NUMBER
Captain 1
Engineer 1
Firefighter lor 2
3. StaffIng configuration for truck companies.
POSITION NUMBER
Captain 1
Engineer 1
Firefighter 1
The Davis Company, Twin VaHey Fire Agencies Appendbc A - 6
A/anudQ County FU't Departnunl
VI. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
1. Administrative Facilities
Name Alameda County Fire Department
AddresslLocation 1426 164th Ave., San Leandro, CA 94578
Structure I Property Owner Alameda County Fire Department
Year I Size I Type 1987; 3 Mobile Modules; Mobile Trailer
S~sDricRdrofitN~ Does not require seisDric retrofitting.
2. Fire Training Facility
Name Alameda County Fire Department
AddresslLocation 20336 San Miguel Ave., Castro Valley, CA 94546 (Sta.#4)
Structure I Property Owner Alameda County Fire Department
Description of Facilities Administration building and training facilities are constructed of
mobile modular units. Specifically. 3 connected for
Administration and 2 for training with a third unit adjacent.
3. Maintenance Facility None; Contract to Russet Diesel.
4. Fire Stations
Station Information Fire Station #1
Address 427 Paseo Grande, San LorenzO. CA 94580
Year I Size I Type 1945; partial 2-story; ordinary V
Remodel Information Does not require seismic retrofitting
Apparatus Assigned Engine 3441 Front Line
Engine 3451 Reserve
Assigned Staffing 1 Captain; 1 Engineer; 2 Firefighters
The Davis Company, Twin Valley Fire Agencies Appendix A - 7
AItutuda County Fue Department
4. Fire Stations (Continued)
Station Information Fire Station #2
Address 109 Grove Way, Hayward, CA 94541
Year I Size I Type 1952; full 2-story; ordinary V
Seismic Retrofit Yes, requires seismic retrofitting.
Apparatus Assigned Engine Front Line
Assigned Staffing 1 Captain; 1 Engineer; 2 Firefighters
Station Information Fire Station #3
Address 1430 164th Ave., San Leandro, CA 94578
Year I Size I Type 1976; single story; Metal frame
Seismic Retrofit Does not require seismic retrofitting
Apparatus Assigned EniIDe 3443 Front Line
Truck 3473 Front Line
Battalion Front Line
Utility 3493 Special Call
Engine 3463 Reserve
Assigned Staffing 2 Captains; 3 Engineers; 3 Firefighters
Station Information Fire Station #4
Address 20336 San Miguel Avenue, Castro Valley, CA 94546
Year I Size I Type 1966; single story; steel and concrete
Seismic Retrofit Does not require seismic retrofitting.
Apparatus Assigned Engine 3444 Front Line
Truck 3474 Front Line
Air-Light Unit 3494 Special Call
WaJ.er Tender 3490 Special Call
Patrol 3498 Special Call
Variable Spare Engine FTI or 1981 Beck Reserve
Assigned Staffing 2 Captains; 2 Engineers; 5 Firefighters
The Davis Company, Twin VaUey Fire Agencies Appendix A - 8
..
A,1JJnuda COUnIy Fire Department
4. Fire Stations (Continued)
Station Information Fire Station #5
Address 18770 Lake Chabot Road, Castro Valley, CA 94546
Year I Size I Type 1963; single story; woodframc
Seismic Retrofit Does not require seismic retrofitting.
Apparatus Assigned Engine 3445 Front Line
Patrol 3485 Special Call (Winter)
Front Line (Summer)
Assigned Staffing 1 Captain; 1 Engineer; 1 Firefighter
Station Information Fire Station #6
Address 19780 Cull Canyon Road, Castro Valley, CA 94546
Year I Size I Type 1980; single story; wood and cement block
Seismic Retrofit Does not require seismic retrofitting.
Apparatus Assigned Engine 3446 Front Line
Patrol 3486 Special Call (Winter) Front Line (Summer)
Spare Engine-Variable FTI or 1981 Van Pelt Reserve
Assigned Staffing 1 Captain; 1 Engineer; 1 Firefighter
Station Information Fire Station #7
Address 6901 Villareal, Castro VaIley,.CA 94552
Year I Size I Type 1987; single story; wood
Seismic Retrofit Does not require seismic retrofitting.
Apparatus Assigned Engine 3447 Front Line
Type m 4x4 3457 Special Call (Winter)
Front Line (Summer)
Assigned Slaffing 1 Captain; 1 Engineer; 1 Firefighter
The Davis Company. Twin Valley Fire Agencies Appendix A - 9
Alameda County Fin Depannunt
4. Fire Stations (Continued)
Station Information Fire Station #8
Address 1617 College Ave., Livermore, CA 94550
Year I Size I Type 1950; two story; concrete
Seismic Retrofit Requires seismic retrofitting.
Apparatus Assigned Engine 1741 - 1993 Spartan (#117) Front Line
Patrol 1781 - 1986 Ford F-2S0 (#354) Front Line(Summer)
Squad 1791 - 1991 Ford Superduty (#355) Front Line
Squad 1792 - 1986 Ford F-3S0 (#356) Reserve
Engine 1742 - 1976 Ford (#116) Reserve
Assigned Staffing 1 Captain; 1 Engineer; 2 Firefighters
I
I 5. Contractual Arrangements for stations
I
Station Information CDF Station
Relationship County has CDF contract; CDF provides fire protection for
Sunol, Highway 580 between Eden. Canyon and Foothill, Eden
Canyon, Palomares, and East Castro Valley Blvd. from Villareal
to Palomares
Address 11345 Pleasanton-Sunol Road, Pleasanton, CA 94566
Apparatus Engine (Owned by County) Front Line
Staffing 1 Engineer; 1 Firefighter
The Davis Company, Twin Valley Fue Agencies Appendix A - 10
Alomeda County Fin Departnunl
5. List of Equipment by Type
SUPPRESSION APPARATUS
ACQUISITION ACQUISITION REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT BY TYPE DATE COST DATE COST
FTI Engine (#103) 1980 100,000 2000 $415.095
Beck Engine (#104) 1982 100,000 2002 457,642
Beck Engine (#105) 1984 180,000 2004 504,550
Beck Engine (#106) 1986 180.000 2006 556,267
Beck Engine (#107) 1987 190,000 2007 584.080
Beck Engine (#108) 1991 250,000 2011 709,953
Boise Type 3 (#109) 1992 180.000 2012 467,486
Van Pelt (#110) 1970 50,000 1994 309,750
Van Pelt (#111) 1981 125,000 2001 435,849
Beck Engine (#112) 1988 225,000 2008 613.284
Beck Engine (#113) 1988 225,000 2008 613,284
Pierce Engine (#114) 1991 275,000 2011 709 .953
Pierce Engine (#115) 1993 274,000 2013 782.728
Howe (#116) 1976 80.000 1996 341.499
Spartan (#117) 1993 180.000 2013 782.723
GTI Truck 1989 775,000 2009 1,637.156
Pierce Truck 1991 475,000 2011 1,082.979
The Davis company, Twin Valley Fire AgellCies
Appendix A-II
Alameda County Hrt Depat'tnUnI
5. List of Equipment by Type. (Continued)
ADMINISTRATIVE/SUPPORT VEHICLES
EQUIPMENT BY TYPE ACQUIsmON ACQUISmON REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT
DATE COST DATE COST
Ford 4x4 (#356) 1986 40,000 2001 60,000
Ford Pick-up (#402) 1982 12,000 1996 20,000
Chevy Scd8n (#403) 1982 10,000 1992 15,000
Ford 81W (#405) 1984 15,000 1995 20 ,000
Chevy Sub (#406) 1989 30,000 1999 45.000
Chevy Scd8n (#407) 1990 17.000 2000 15 ,000
Pontiac Scd8n (#408) 1990 17.000 2000 15 ,000
Dodge Van (#409) 1985 15,000 1995 15 ,000
Ford Scd8n (#410) 1991 15,000 2001 15 ,000
Ford Air Rig (#301) 1990 130,000 2010 201.000
International Water Tender (#302) 1991 198,000 2011 630,190
Iotcmational Air Rig (#303) 1991 150,000 2011 150,000
Chevy 4x4 (#351) 1980 20,000 1995 45,000
GMC 4x4 (#352) 1992 40.000 2007 75.000
Chevy 4x4 (#353) 1983 30,000 1995 45,000
Ford 4x4 (#354) 1986 35.000 2001 60 ,000
Ford (#355) 1991 65.000 2016 150,000
Chevy Sedan (#411) 1984 10,000 1994 20 ,000
Ford Sedan (#412) 1985 12,000 1995 20 ,000
Chevy Sub (#413) 1987 15 .000 1997 42,000
Dodge Van (#414) 1989 18,000 1999 15 ,000
Ford Sedan (#415) 1991 18,000 2001 15 ,000
Ford Sedan (#416) 1991 18,000 2001 2S ,000
Ford Sedan (#417) 1992 18.000 2002 15 ,000
Ford Sedan (#420) 1992 18,000 2002 2S ,000
Ford 4x4 (#421) 1989 20,000 1999 30,000
The Davis Company, Twin Valley Frre Agencies
Appendix A . 12
Almneda County Fin Deportnunl
MEDICAL AID VEIllCLFS
ACQUISITION ACQUISITION REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT BY TYPE DATE COST DATE COST
Supervisor Vehicle 1983 1994 $30,000
SupportlMCI 1991
The Davis Company. Twin Valley Fire Agencies Appendb: A - 13
AlJmuda County Fin Department
VII. PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
1.
Agencies providing basic EMT services:
Alameda County Fire Department
2.
Agencies providing EMID services:
Alameda County Fire Department
3.
Agencies providing paramedic services:
AMRI Alameda County Fire
Department 1994
FIRE PREVENTION & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONTROL
1. Number of positions fully dedicated to fire prevention.
Position Number
Chief Officers 1
FirefighterlEngineer/Captain 3
Other (non-safety) 0
2. Present occupancy factors in jurisdiction.
Number of single family structures 28,750+
Number of multi-family structures 910
Number of multi-family units 7,820+
Industrial square footage (estimate) 950,000 est.
Retail & commercial office square footage N/A
Other; cite examples 4 Hospitals,
30 Convalescent
Hospitals,
52 Schools
3.
Responsibility for protecting wildland acreage.
Yes
The Davis Company, Twin Valley Fire Agencies
ttppendb: A . 14
AlamedD County Fire Department
4. Classifications of uses requiring fire sprinklers. All new construction over 5,000 Sq.
Ft. (R-3 exception)
5. Type and class of roofmg required.
For multi-family stnlctures
Building Department Requirements (Based on UBC)
C or Better (Soon to be -B-)
For single-family stnlctures
6. Describe role in hazardous material control in jurisdiction.
For enforcement: None, performed by County Environmental Health
For disclosure: None, performed by County Environmental Health
TRAINING
1. Describe your department's in-service tactical training.
Location of facility:
Station 4 lot, Fairmont Hospital, San
Leandro Fire Tower, Pleasanton Fire
Tower, Livermore Veteran's Hospital
Types of regular training activities:
· Station 4: Train with ladders, hose
lays, vehicle extrication, and
hazardous materials
· Fairmont Hospital: Conduct
wildland hose lays, off road
driving, and structural fire attack
scenarios.
· San Leandro Fire Tower:
Hazardous materials, fire attack,
driver training, engine testing,
ladders, aerial operations, vehicle
extrication, flammable liquids
fires, live fire training, and entry
academies.
The Davis Company, 7Win Valley Fire Agencies
Appendix A - 15
Alameda County Fm Department
. Pleasanton Fire Tower:
Hazardous materials, fire attack,
ladders, and aerial operations.
1.
Training types (Continued):
. Veteran's Hospital, Livermore:
Fire attack, ladders, helicopter
operations.
2. Describe your department's training collaboration efforts with other departments.
Conduct regular joint training:
Yes
Indicate which departments and the frequency of the training.
LIST OF DEPARTMENTS FREQUENCY
San Leandro Fire Weekly
Oakland Fire Weekly
Pleasanton Fire Weekly
Livermore Fire Weekly
Dougherty Regional Fire Weekly
Veteran's Hospital Monthly
San Ramon Fire Annually
. The Training Officers of the South Zone plan to begin weekly training with all departments within
South Zone.
The Davis Company, Twin Valley Fue Agencies
Appendix A - 16
Alamedo County FU't Department
3. Current level of training for full-time staff. Describe the certifications and the number
of positions that are currently certified.
TABLE A - CERTIFICATIONS
Operations Fn-ef"ighters & Company Officers Chief Officers
Certifications Engineers
EMT 1 81 33 6
EMTD 81 33 6
FFll 81 0 0
Haz Mat Operations 81 33 8
Haz Mat Scene Mgr 20 8
Rescue Systems I 8 2 2
Paramedic 6 0 0
Haz Mat Technician 3 3 2
Strike Team Leader 7 8
Safety Officer 4 3
TABLE B - MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATIONS
Management Academies
Certificatiom
Company Officers
Chief Officers
Fire Officer
Chief Officer
10
3
3
2
2
Master Instructor
1
The Davis Company, Twin Valley FU"e Agencies
Appendix A - 17
DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
AGENCY PROFILE
The Davis Compmry, Twin Valley Fue Agencies
Appendix A ~ 18
Dougherty RegiolUll Fin Authority
AGENCY PROFILE
DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
I. GENERAL OVERVIEW
1. Agency Name & Address: Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
9399 Fircrest Lane
San Ramon, California 94583
(510) 803-8650
(510) 803-8630 (fax)
2. Chief Administrator: Karl Diekman, Fire Chief
3. Governing Board: Joint Powers Board comprised of three (3) members
from each City council (Dublin & San Ramon)
4. Governing Agency Director: Richard Ambrose, City Manager, Dublin
(510) 833~6650
Herb Moniz, City Manager, San Ramon
(510) 275-2221
II. SERVICE AREA
1. Service Area: 12 sq. mi.
2. Service Population: 45,000 (estimate)
3. Serve territory outside
primary boundaries: No
4. Assessed Value:
a. Land Dublin $494,369,033
San Ramon $381,406,000
b. Structures Dublin $996.210,701
San Ramon $741.210,000
c. Total Assessed Value $2,613,195.734
5. ISO Rating: 3 in 1990
,
The Davis Company, 7Win Valley rlre Agencies Appendix It - 19
Dougherty RegiolUll FU't Authority
Ill. FINANCIAL DATA
1. Revenue history.
Revenue Sources Actual 1992-93 Budget 1993-94
Dublin Contribution 2,630,947 2,732,752
San Ramon Contribution 1,848,698 1,907,954
Fees/Charges 47,031 67,000
Capital Impact Fees 55,044 60,000
Interest Income 10,714 4,500
Other Revenues 69,459 22,000
Total Operating Revenue $4,661,893 $4,794,206
2. Expense history.
Expense Sources Actual 1992-93 Budget 1993-94
Suppression & OperatiODS 4,014,939 4,144,236
Training In suppression In suppression
Prevention 218,960 240,510
Administration/Support 422,259 373,860
Total Operating Expenses 4,656,159 4,758,606
Capital - Facilities 0 21,000
Capital. Equipment 0 791,400
Total Capital Expenses 0 812,000
Total Expenses $4,656,159 $5,571,006
Note:
1. Training costs are included in suppression and operations budget.
2. Expenses include depreciation (1992-1993 - $107,878; 1993-1994 - $171,166.)
The Davis Company, Twin Valky Fire Agencies
Appendix A - 20
Dougherty Regional FIn AUlhorlJy
IV. ORGANIZATION INFORMATION
1. Staffing overview.
CLASSIFICATION ADMIN PREV TRAINING SUP/OPS FULL-TIME
Fire Chief 1 1
Battalion Chief .75 .5 .25 1.5 3
Fire Marshal 1 1
Fire Captain 12 12
Fire Engineer 27 27
Firefighter 3 3
Fire Inspectors 2 2
Administrative Assistant 1 1
Secretary 1 .5 1.5
TOTAL 3.75 4 .25 43.5 51.5
2. Projected Retirement of Personnel.
PERSONNEL BY CLASS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1991-98 1998-99
Chief
Assistant Chief
Deputy Chief
Battalion Chief 1 1
Captain 2
Engineer 1
Firefighter
']he Davis Company, Twin Valley Fire Agencies
Appendix A - 21
Dougherty Regional Fin Authority
v. RESOURCE DEPLOYMENT
1. Assigned staffing per shift for shift personnel.
Position Nmnber
Captain 4
Engineer 4
Firefighter 6
Firefighter 14
2. Minimum staff per shift
for shift personnel. 12
3. Assigned staffing configuration for engine companies.
Position Number
Captain 1
Engineer 1
Firefighterl lor 2
~:
1. Staff two engines with 2 Firefighters.
4. Staffing configuration for truck companies.
Position Number
Captain 1
Engineer 1
Firefighter 1
1
The Davis Company, 7Win Valley Fire Agencies Appendix A . 22
Dougherty Regional Fin Authority
VI. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
1. Administrative Facilities
Name Administration Office Building
AddresslLocation 9399 Fircrest Lane. San Ramon
Structure I Property Owner Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
2. Fire Training Facility None.
3. Maintenance Facility None; contract with City of Livermore
4. Fire Stations
Station Information Fire Station #1
Address 7191 Donohue Drive
Year; Size; Type 1993; 8,300 Sq. Ft.; IV
Seismic Retrofit No
Apparatus Assigned Engine 1441 Front Line
Truck 1471 Front Line
Patrol 1481 Front Line
Engine 1445 Reserve
Staffing Engine: 1 Captain, 1 Engineer. 2 Firefighters
Truck: 1 Captain, 1 Engineer. 1 Firefighter
Station Information Fire Station #2
Address 9399 Fircrest Lane
Year; Size; Type 1978,7.300 Sq. Ft.; IV
Seismic Retrofit No
Apparatus Assigned Engine 1442 Front Line
Engine 1443 Front Line
Patrol 1482 Front Line
Staffing Engine: 1 Captain. 1 Engineer, 2 Firefighters
Truclc: 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1 Firefighter
The Davis Company, Twin ValUy Fire A.gencies Appendix.A. 6 23
,
DougheTty Regionol Fire Authority
5. List of Equipment by Type
SUPPRESSION APPARATUS
ACQUISITION REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT BY TYPE DATE DATE cosr
Van Pelt pumper 1984 2004 $285,000
Pierce pumper 1991 2011 285,000
Groman pumper 1980 2000 285,000
Van Pelt pumper 1978 1998 285,000
Van Pelt Quint 1981 2001 550,000
Paioletti patrol 1986 1996 75,000
Paioletti patrol 1986 1996 75,000
MEDICAL AID VEHICLES
EQUIPMENT BY TYPE
ACQUISITION
DATE
REPLACEMENT
DATE
REPLACEMENT
cosr
Stoner Modular Ambulance
Stoner Modular Ambulance
1987
1984
1994
1994
80,000
80,000
The Davis company. 7Win Valley Fire Agencies
Appendix A . 24
Dougherty RegiolUJl Fin Authority
5. List of Equipment by Type (Continued)
ADMINISTRATIVE/SUPPORT VEIllCLES 1
EQUIPMENT BY TYPE ACQUISITION REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT
DATE DATE COST
Ford Taurus 1992 2002 17,850
Ford Crown Victoria 1990 2000 22,320
Dodge Diplomat 1989 1999 22,320
Ford LTD station wagon 1994 2004 17,850
Ford 3/4 ton 1989 2009 22,320
Ford 1/2 ton 1984 1994 22,320
Ford Bronco 4x4 1985 1995 39,060
Stoner Modular Ambulance (Public 1985 1995 22,320
Education)
Sedan 1994 2004 17,850
Command Vehicle 1994 2004 39,060
Note:
1. Replacement dates estimated at 10 years.
The Davis Compmry. Twin Valley Fue Agencies
Appendix A . 25
Dougherty RegiolUll Fin Authority
VII. PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
1.
Agencies providing basic EMT services:
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
2.
Agencies providing EM1D services:
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
3.
Agencies providing paramedic services:
American Medical serves Dublin;
John Muir/San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District serves San
Ramon.
F1RE PREVENTION & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONTROL
1. Number of positions fully dedicated to fire prevention.
Position Nwnber
Chief Officers 1
Firefighter/Engineer/Captain 0
Other (non-safety) 2
2. Present occupancy factors in jurisdiction.
Number of single family structures 11,280
Number of multi-family structure6 n1a
Number of multi-family units 2200
Industrial square footage (estimate) 1,386,813
Retail & commercial office square footage 3,706,825
Other; cite examples 491,322
3. Responsibility for protecting wildland acreage. Yes; 200 acres
The Davis Company, 7Win Valley Fire Agencies
Appendix if - 26
Dougherty Regional Hre AUlhorlly
4. Classifications of uses requiring fire sprinklers. * See Uniform Building Code
5. Type and class of roofing required.
For multi-family structures
For single-family structures
. See Uniform Building Code
. See Uniform Building Code
6. Describe role in hazardous material control in jurisdiction.
For enforcement:
* See Uniform Fire Code
For disclosure:
Required
TRAINING
1. Describe your department's in-service tactical training.
Location of facility:
None, use Pleasanton facility.
Types of regular training activates:
Hose evolutions, Ladder
Hazardous Materials
drill
~
2. Describe your department's training collaboration efforts with other departments.
Conduct regular joint training:
Yes
Indicate which departments and the frequency of the training.
. LISI' OF DEPARTMENTS FREQUENCY
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Weekly
Pleasanton Fire Department Weekly
Livermore Fire Department Weekly
Lawrence Livermore Lab. Fire Department Weekly
The Davis Company, Twin Valley Fue AgellCies
Appendix A - 27
Dougherty Regional Ffn Authority
3. Current level of training for full-time staff. Describe the certifications and the number
of positions that are currently certified.
TABLE A - Certifications
Operations Firef'Jgbters &; Company Ofticers Chief Ofticers
CertificatiON! Engineers
Fire Fighter I&n All All All
EMTD All All 2
Heavy Rescue All All 2
Apparatus operator All Engineers All 3
Management Academies Company Oftic:er'S Chief Officers
CertificatiODS
Fire Officer Certification 10 2
Chief Officer Certification 3 1
TABLE B - Management and Academy Certifications
The Davis Comparry, 7Win Valley Fire Agencies
Appendix A - 28
LIVERMORE FIRE DEPARTMENT
AGENCY PROFILE
The Davis Company, 7Win Valley Frre Agencies
Appendix A - 29
Uvennort Fire DepaT'tnunl
AGENCY PROFILE
CITY OF LIVERMORE
I. GENERAL OVERVIEW
1.
Agency Name & Address:
Livermore Fire Department
4550 East Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
(510) 373-5450
(510) 373-5414 (fax)
2.
Chief Administrator:
Stewart Gary, Fire Chief
3.
Governing Board:
City Council
4.
Governing Agency Director:
Lee Homer, City Manager
(510) 373-5140
II. SERVICE AREA
1.
Service Area:
21.9 Sq. Mi.
2.
Service Population:
61,782
3.
Serve territory outside
primary boundaries:
No; Auto-aid agreement with the Lawrence
Livermore Lab; participate in Mutual Aid.
4. Assessed Value:
a. Land
b. Structures
c. Total Assessed Value
N/A
N/A
$3,785,436,167
The Davis Comptmy, 7Win Valky Fire Agencies
Appendix A - 30
Uvennore Fire Departm.enJ
5. ISO Rating: 3 as of 1993
III. FINANCIAL DATA
1. Revenue history.
REVENUE SOURCES ACTUAL 1992-93 BUDGET 1993-94
General Fund 5,110,532 5,192,715
Em.county Levy 12,000 12,000
Contract Revenues 0 0
Fee/Charges 119,558 239,115
Other Revenues 9,110 9,110
Total Operating Revenue $5,251,200
2. Expense history.
EXPENSE SOURCES ACTUAL 1992-93 BUDGET 1993-94
Suppression & EMS 4,337.470 4,489,650
Training 114,020 124,590
Prevention 610,310 652,830
Administration/Support 189,400 185,870
Total Operating Expenses 5,251,200 5,452,940
Capital - Facilities 43,970 94,760
Capital - Equipment 28,530 74,140
I Total Capital Expenses I 72,500 I 168,900 I
Total Expenses $5,233,700 $5,621,840
The Davis COmpDrry. Twin Valley Fire Agencies
Append<< A ~ 31
Llvemwrt Hn Department
IV. ORGANIZATION INFORMATION
1. Staffing overview.
CLASSIFICATION ADMIN PREVo TRAINING SUP/OPS FULL-TIME
Fire Chief 2 1 1
Deputy Chief 1 1
Division Chief' .66 .34 2 3
Fire Captain 12 12
Engineer 12 12
Firefighter 17 17
Fire Manhal 1 1
Fire Inspector 3 3
Hazardous Material Coordinator 1 1
Support Staff' 2.0 1.5 3.5
TOTAL 4.66 6.5 0.34 43 54.5
Notes:
2. Fire Chief's time is split between administration and building.
3. Division Chiefs work a modified shift with two days assigned to administrative duties. Major junctional
assignments have been indicated (specific assignments include: Training, Disaster, EMS/ Public
Education.
2. Projected Retirement of Personnel (by age 50 eligibility).
Personnel by Class 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Chief
Assistant Chief
Deputy Chief 1
Division Chief 1 1 1
Captain 3 2 2
lieutenant
Engineer 2 1 2
Firefighter 1 1
The Davis Company. 1\vin Valley Fire Agencies
Appendix A - 32
U..emwre Fin Departnunt
v. RESOURCE DEPLOYMENT
1. Assigned staffing per shift for shift personnel.
POSITION NUMBER
Captain 4
Engineer 4
Firefighter 6
Total 14
2. Minimum staffing per shift
for shift personnel: 12 staff
3. Staffing configuration for engine companies.
POSITION NUMBER
Captain 1
Engineer 1
Firefighter lor 2
ti2.ts!:
2. Stalions 1 and 2 have 2 Firefighters on shift.
4. Staffing configuration for truck companies. 3
POSITION NUMBER
Captain 1
Engineer 1
Firefighter lor 2
Notes:
3. Truck is al Slalion #2; truck is not staffing full-time.
The Davis Company, Twin Valley Fire Agencies Appendix A - JJ
Livtnnort Fin DtpartmenJ
VI. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
1. Administrative Facilities
Name
Address/Location
Stnlcture I
Owner
Livermore Fire D
4550 East Avenue
Ci of Livermore
ment Station #1
2.
Fire Training Facility
None, use Pleasanton facility.
3. Maintenance Facility
Name Maintenance Service Center Ci of Livermore
Address/Location
Structure I Pro
3500 Robertson Park Road
Owner
Ci of Livermore
Descri tion of Facilities
4. Fire Stations
Apparatus Assigned
Fire Station #1
4550 East Avenue
1979' 9500 S . Ft.' 5-1 hour
No
Fully Enclosed lo-man Engine (1987)
4+WD -E-l. Mini Pump (1981)
Van Pelt Ford Pumper (1973)
Air &. Light Unit (1986)
4+WD Command Vehicle (1987)
1 Ton Dad e Van 1989
Front Line - 1341
Front Line - 1381
Reserve - 1361
Special Call - 1391
Front Line - 1310
Sial Call - 1393
Station Information
Address
Yearl Sizel T
Seismic Retrofit
Staffin
The Davis Company, Twin Valley Fue Agencies
Appendix A - 34
4. Fire Stations (Continued)
Station Information
Address
Year/ Size/ T
Seismic Retrofit
Apparatus Assigned
Staffin
Station Information
Address
Year/ Size/ T
Seismic Retrofit
Apparatus Assigned
Staffin
Station Information
Address
Year/ Size/ T
Seismic Retro e
Apparatus Assigned
Staffin
The Davis Compwry, Twin Valley Fire Agencies
Fire Station # 2
951 Rincon Avenue
1964' 7 200 S . Ft.'IIIN
No
Ladder Truck 110 ft. (1988)
Fire Pumper (1990)
4-WD I-ton patrol 1986
Fire Station #3
1389 Bluebell Avenue
1965' 2100 S . Ft.. VN
No
Fire Pumper (1984)
4-WD I-ton Patrol 1986
Fire Station #4
1919 Cordoba
19763700 S . Ft.' 5-1 hour
No
Pumperrrele-Squirt Emergency one (l981)
4-wt> I-ton Patrol (1988)
Fire Pu 1973
Uvemwrt Fin Department
Front Line - 1372
Front Line - 1342
Front Line - 1382
Front Line - 1343
Front Line - 1383
Front Line - 1343
Front Line - 1384
Reserve - 1364
Appendix A ~ 35
U..ermoTe Fin Department
5. List of Equipment by Type
SUPPRESSION APPARATUS
EOUIPMENT BY TYPE AC~UISITION REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT
ATE DATE CDSI'
Enrine American Ealode 1987 2007 N/A
Entrine Kovatch 1990 2010 N/A
Enrine Hedrickson 1984 2004 N/A
En2ine Emer2encv One (55' Squirt) 1981 2001 N/A
En2ine VanPelt 1973 1995 N/A
Encine Van Pelt 1973 1994 N/A
LTI (100' Truck) 1988 2008 N/A
Patrol GMC 1981 2001 N/A
Patrol Chev 1986 2001 N/A
Patrol Chev 1986 2001 N/A
Patrol GMC 1986 2001 N/A
Patrol Chev 1988 2003 N/A
Ford F-Superdutv (Support Air & LilZhtl 1990 2005 N/A
The Davis Company, 7Win Valley Fue Agencies
Appendix A . 36
Uvemwre JiJre Depo.rtment
5. List of Equipment by type (Continued):
ADMINISTRATIVE/SUPPORT VEIllCLES1
EQUIPMENT BY TYPE ACQUISITION REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT
DATE DATE cosr
Sedan aIds 1990 1994 N/A
Sedan Ford 1993 1994 N/A
Sedan Ford LID 1985 2005 N/A
Ford Bronco 1987 2007 N/A
Van Ford Aerostar 1989 2009 N/A
Van Dod2e B.350 1989 2009 N/A
Pick Up GMC Sierra 1994 2004 N/A
Pick Up Ford Ran2er 1991 2001 N/A
Pick Uo Ford Ranger 1990 2000 N/A
Pick Up Chev S.10 1985 1995 N/A
Pick Un Ford Ran2er 1986 1996 N/A
Van International Metro 1965 N/A N/A
NOIeI:
f."'1iiO lpCCific rcplaccmcDt cOllI.
The Davis Company, Twin Valley Fire Agencies
Appendix A . 37
Uvtnnore Fire DtpartnunJ
VII. PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
3.
Agencies providing paramedic services:
Local Fire Department - First
Responders
Local Fire Department - First
Responders
Private Company - American
Medical Response West
1.
Agencies providing basic EMT services:
2.
Agencies providing EM1D services:
FIRE PREVENTION & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONTROL
1. Number of positions fully dedicated to fire prevention.
POSITION NUMBER
Chief Officers 1
Firefi2hterlEosrineer/Captain 0
Other (noo-safetv) 4 + 1.50
Notes:
1. Civilian Positions: 1 Hazardous Materials Coordinalor, 3 Inspectors, and 1.50 Clerical
2. Present occupancy factors in jurisdiction..
Number of sinj.!le family strocturesZ 18.129
Number of multi~family structures S95
Number of multi-family units 4838
Industrial sauare foota2e (estimate) 7.505.800
Retail & commercial office sauare foota2e 3.860.810
Other Footage
Unknown
Note:
1. Above based on 1993 data.
2. 17,650 singlejamily structures + 479 mobile homes.
3.
4.
Responsibility for protecting wildland acreage.
Classifications of uses requiring fire sprinklers.
Yes; 1,250 acres
All new construction and specific
retrofit provisions
The Davis Company, Twin Valley rITe Agencies
Appendix A . 38
U"ennort Fin DepartmenJ
5. Type and class of roofing required.
For multi.famil structures
Class B min
Class B
6. Describe role in hazardous material control in jurisdiction.
For enforcement:
Enforce Uniform BuildinWFire Codes
1991 Edition, Enforce Chapter 6.95
Division 20 H & S and Sara Title 3.
Admin. Agenc)' 6.95 Division 20 H
& S, Uniform Fire Code, Article 80,
1991 Edition.
For disclosure:
TRAINING
1. Describe your department's in-service tactical training.
Location of facility: Stations and Pleasanton Training
Center, Pleasanton, California
Haz Mat Drills and Company
Evolutions
2. Describe your department's training collaboration efforts with other departments.
Conduct regular joint training: Yes
Indicate which departments and the frequency of the training:
Types of regular training activates:
LIST OF DEPARTMENTS
Pleasanton Fire D t
FRE UENCY
WeeId
Weekl
WeeId
WeeId
Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab
Alameda Coun Fire D
3. Current level of training for full-time staff. Describe the certifications and the number
of positions that are currently certified.
TABLE A - Certifications
OPERATIONS
CERTIFlCATIONS
FF-l FF-2 EMT-IA
Fire Officer
Chief Officer
FIREFIGHTERS &
ENGINEERS
30
15
o
COMPANY
OFFICERS
12
12
o
CHIEF OFFICERS
6
6
1h~ Davis COmpalty, Twin Valky Fir~ Agencj~s
Appendb; A - 39
LivemwTf! FiTf! Departnunl
- Da2emen e 1C8 Ion
~ement Academies Company Officers Chief Officers
erlifications
Multiple Certificates 4 4
TABLE B Ma
t c rtifi f
The Davis Company, 7Win Valley Frre Agencies
Appendix Ii - 40
PLEAS ANT ON FIRE DEPARTMENT
AGENCY PROFILE
1h~ Davis Company, TWin Valley F".~ Ag~1lCieS
App~ndb: A - 41
pkasanJon Fire DtpartmenJ
AGENCY PROFILE
CITY OF PLEASANTON
I. GENERAL OVERVIEW
2.
3.
4.
1.
Agency Name & Address:
pleasa.nton Fire Department
4444 Railroad Ave.
Pleasa.ntonJ,. California 94566-0802
(510) 484-zs114
(510) 484-8178 (fax)
George Withers, Fire Chief
Chief Administrator:
Governing Board:
Pleasa.nton City Council
Governing Agency Director:
Deborah Acosta
City Manager
(510) 484.8008
(510) 484-8236 (fax)
II. SERVICE AREA
1.
2.
3.
Service Area:
Service Population:
Serve territory outside
primary boundaries:
23 sq. mi
52,585
Yes: Castlewood, Sycamore/Happy Valley
Reman Tract
4. Assessed Value:
a. Land 1.861.069.452
b. Structures 3.681.396.839
c. Total Assessed Value 5.542,466.291
5.
ISO Rating:
3 as of 1992
Appendix A ~ 42
The Davis Company. Twin VaHey Fire Agencies
Pkasanton Fin Department
III. FINANCIAL DATA
1. Revenue history.
Revenue Sources
Actual 1992-93
Bu et 1993-94
General Fund
Fire-EMS
Contract Revenues
Fees/C es
Other Revenues
Total Revenue
5451 439
6500
130 500
31 500
3000
$5,622,939
5 484 139
8000
134 500
34 000
3000
$5,663.639
2. Expense history.
Exoense Sources Actual 1992-93 Bud2et 1993-94
SUDoression & Operations 3 992.213 3,967,278
Trainill2 765.574 "'757,502
Prevention 646,889 705,783
Administration/SUPpOrt 218,263 233,076
Total <>Peratill2 E 5,622,939 5,663,639
Capital - Facilities 0 238,000
CaDital - Equipment 0 455,000
Total Capital E 0 693,000
Total E $5,622,939 $6,356,639
Note:
-. All hours, including time spent in training by fire companies are estimated for budgetary purposes.
The Davis company. Twin Valky Fire Agencies
Appendix A ~ 43
Pleasanton Jiirt Department
IV. ORGANIZATION INFORMATION
1. Staffmg overview. *
Classification Admin Prev. Trainin2 SUO/ODS Full-Time
Fire Chief 1 1
Fire Marshal
Trainin2 Officer .
Battalion Chief .37 .12 .37 2.14 3
Captains .75 1.11 7.14 9
Lieutenants .75 1.11 7.14 9
EnJrineers .75 1.11 7.14 9
Firefil!hters 1.73 2.72 15.55 20
Fire InsPeCtors 2 2
Administrative Staff 1 .5 1.5
Haz Mat Specialist (vacant) 1 1
TOTAL 2.37 7.6 6.42 39.19 55.5
. Distribution of staff hours as estimated by the City.
2. Projected Retirement of Personnel.
Personnel bv Class 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Chief
Fire Marshal 1
Deputy Chief
Battalion Chief 1 1
Captain 1 1
Lieutenant
En2ineer
Firefil!hter
The Davis Company, Twin Valley Fire Agencies
Appendix A . 44
Pkasanlon Hn Depal'tnUnI
v. RESOURCE DEPLOYMENT
1. Assigned staffing by shift for shift personnel.
Position Number
Caotain 3
Lieutenant 3
EnJrineer 3
Firefi2hter 6
Total 15
2. Assi~ed staffing by shift
for s . ft personnel. 15
3. Assigned staffing configuration for engine and truck companies.
Position Nmnber
Caotain 1
En2ineer 1
Firefi2hter 1
4. Staffmg configuration for squads.
Position Nmnber
Lieutenant 1
Firefi2hter 1
The Davis Company, Twin Valley Fire Agencies Appendix A - 45
Pkasonton Hrt Department
VI. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
1. Admin::ttrative Facilities
Name Fire Station #1
AddresslI...ocati:n 4444 Railroad Avenue
Strocture I Prcr.ertv Owner City of Pleasanton
2. Fire T:aining Facility
Name Pleasanton Fire Department Trainin2 Tower
Address/I....ocati:n 3301 Busch Road
Structure I Prttertv OWner City of Pleasanton
Description of Facilities Two-story command center housing a large classroom com,plete
with full audio-visual equipment system. A six story trainmg
tower with two burn rooms for live fire trainin2.
3. Mainte:.ance Facility
Name Ooerations Service Center
AddresslLocati31 3333 Busch Road
Structure I . Owner City of Pleasanton
Description of Facilities Multi-building facility that provides vehicle maintenance for city
vehicles as well as other repair services for the city.
4. Fire Stations
Station Infonm:ion Fire Station #1
Address 4444 Railroad Avenue
Yearl Sizel TY1:e 1928: 11,432 Sa. Ft.; ill
Seismic Retrofit 1993 Completed Retrofit
Apparatus Asslgned Engine 1241/611 Front Line
SqUad 1291/617 Front Line
Patrol 1281/610 Special Call
Engine 1251/601 Reserve
1945 Mack Historical
Staffln2 1 Caotain, 1 Lieutenant 1 EnJrineer, 2 Firefi2hters
The Davis Ccnnp:;ry. Twin Valley Fire Agencies
Appendix A - 46
PkDmnloll Fin Departl1lelll
4. Fire Stations (Continued)
Station Information Fire Station #2
Address 6300 Stonerid e Mall Road
Yearl Sizel T 1986' 13 018' V
Seismic Retrofit No
Apparatus Assigned Engine 1242/614 FrontLine
Squad 1292/616 FrontLine
Support Unit 1290/618 Special Call
Engine 1252/608 Reserve
Patrol 1282/619 S ial Call
Staffin
Station Information Fire Station #3
Address 3200 Santa Rita Road
Year/Size/T 1971' 6 292 S . Ft.. V
Seismic Retrofit No
Apparatus Assigned Truck 12731609 FrontLine
Squad 1293/613 Front Line
Engine 12531603 Front Line
Patrol 1283/612 S ial Call
Staffin
The Davis Comparry, Twin Valley rue Agencies
Appendix A - 47
Pleasanlon Fire DtJHll11tUnI
5. List of Equipment by Type
SUPPRESSION APPARATIJS
EQuioment bv Type Accwisition Replacement Replacement
ate Date Cost
Beck EnJrine 1241 1988 2008 N/A
Van Pelt EDlnne 1242 1985 2005 N/A
Boardman Enme 1252 1975 1995 N/A
Crown EnJrine 1253 1970 1994 N/A
SutDhen Truck 1273 1981 2001 N/A
GMC Patrol 1282 1990 2010 N/A
Int'l Patrol 1283 1975 1995 N/A
GMC Patrol 1281 1983 2003 N/A
Crown Eome 1251 1969 1994 N/A
Int'l Support 1990 2010 N/A
MEDICAL AID VEHICLES
Acquisition
Date
1989
1988
1984
Replacement
Date
2009
2008
2004
Replacement
Cost
Int'l Rescue S uad
Int'l Rescue S uad
Int'l Rescue S uad
N/A
N/A
N/A
The Davis Company, Twin. Valley Fire A.gencies
Appendix A. - 48
PletJmnton Fire Department
5. List of Equipment by Type (Continued)
ADMINISTRATIVE/SUPPORT VEHICLES
Equipment by Type Acb:ition Replacement Replacement
te Date Cost
Chevrolet Celebritv 1985 1995 N/A
Ford Temno 1988 1998 N/A
Chevrolet Blazer 1987 1997 N/A
Ford Victoria 1987 1997 N/A
OMC Pickuo 1981 1996 N/A
Ford Tcmno 1990 2000 N/A
Ford Tcmno 1987 1997 N/A
The Davis Company, Twin Valhy Fire Agencies
Appendix A - 49
Pleasanton Fire Department
VII. PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICFS
1. Agencies providing basic EMT services:
Pleasanton Fire Department
2.
Agencies providing EMTD services:
Pleasanton Fire Department
3.
Agencies providing paramedic services:
American Medical Response West
FIRE PREVENTION & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONTROL
I. Number of positions fully dedicated to fIre prevention.
Position Nmnber
Chief Officers 1
FirefighterlEnlrineer/Captain 0
Other (1-nonsafety and 1-safety) 2
2. Present occupancy factors in jurisdiction.
Number of sinlde family structures 13 265
Number of multi-family structures -
Number of multi-family units 7.500
Industrial sauare footage (estimate) 2 157,500
Retail & commercial office sauare footalZe 9 361 600
Other (medical, public, institutional use) 2.487,400
3.
Responsibility for protecting wildland acreage.
Yes; 7,424 acres
The Davis Company, 1Wi1l Valley Fire Agencies
Appendix A-50
Pleasanton Fire Department
4.
Classifications of uses requiring fire sprinklers.
Any structure over 8,()(X) sq. ft.,
beyond a 5 minute response time, or
in a hi~h hazard area (fuel, slope,
weather).
5.
Type and class of roofing required.
Class A & B fire retardant roofmg
required for high hazard areas and
those beyond a five minute response
time from first due station or those
where slope and vegetation would
produce a high fire hazard (CDF
Standard).
Class C fire retardant required for all
new construction.
For multi-familv structures
For sinlde-familv structures
· See above
* See above
6. Describe role in hazardous material control in jurisdiction.
For enforcement:
Local haz mat ordinance including
underground storage tanks
Same as above
For disclosure:
TRAINING
1. Describe your department's in-service tactical training.
Location of facility:
Types of regular training activates:
3301 Busch Road, Pleasanton
Leadership, officer development, haz
mat, inspection & emergency response,
exposure control, wildland urban
interface, EMTI-A recertification
training, company drills, and live fire
training.
The Davis Company, Twin Valley Fire A.gencies
A.ppendix A. - 51
PktJSQnton Fire Depa11ment
2. Describe your department's training collaboration efforts with other departments.
Conduct regular joint training:
Yes
Indicate which departments and the frequency of the training.
LISI' OF DEPARTMENTS
FRE UENCY
Livermore Fire D
t
.
Lawrence Livermore Lab Fire
.
.
San Ramon Valle Fire District
.
Hm2!:
--Frequency: Mutual aid drills occur weekly; haz; mat drill occur monthly.
3. Current level of training for full-time staff. Describe the certifications and the number
of positions that are currently certified.
TABLE A - Certifications
Oper:ations
Certifications
Firel'~hters &
E neers
Company Officers
Chief Officers
Driver
riA. 1B
10
5
19
9
1
9
3
4
18
1
4
Haz Mat S
EMT-D
Strike Team Leader
The Davis Compmry, 7Win Valley rue Agencies
Appendix A-52
PUtu4nton Ji"In lkpal't11Unt
- Da2emen e IC8 IOns
~ement Academies Company oman Chief oman
ertificatiODS
ICS & Fire command 4
EMS Management 1
Workshop
Fire Safetv Officer Control 2
V chicle Rescue 4
Fire Instructor 2C 4
Vertical RODe Rescue 1
Fire Manasrement 3
2
Fire Officer
Heavv Rescue Instructor 1
TABLE B Ma
t C rtifi f
The Davis Company. 7\vin Valley Fire Agencies
Appendb: A-53
APPENDIX B
WAGE AND BENEFIT COSTS
TWIN VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENTS
MONTHLY BASE SALARY (Top Step)
TWIN VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENTS
ALAMEDA
CLASSIFICATIONS DOUGHERTY UVERMORE PLEASANTON COUNTY
Chief 7,502 7,720 7,415 8,132
Assistant Chief ----- ----- ----- -----
Deputy Chief ----- 6627 ----- 6,896
Battalion Chief ----- ----- 5,806 5,769
Division Chief ----- 6128 ----- -----
Captain 4,935 4,906 5,084 4,683
Ueutenant ----- ----- 4,622 -----
Engineer 4097 4,449 4401 4,176
Firefighter 3,896 4,035 4,192 3,903
Notes:
1. Dougherty Fire Chief salary represents top step; the control point is $6,820.
b:\tVaDey\topslcp.wkl
The Davis Company, Twin Valley Fire Agenciu
Appendix B-2
1993-94 TWIN VALLEY TOTAL COMPENSATION
FIRE CAPTAIN
Fire C.ptaln A"med.
Total CompenutJon AiMIpI. Dougherty L,",nn~ PI.unton County I
H~W;::::::f:i:{\il'::j:::mr::W:i'i':;:::m::::;lj)r{J::m[jj::{::::;n:mttf::; ~~~m~~mfmlm~~
Hours Del' week (a~ae) 56 56 56 56
Hours per vear 2,912 2,912 2,912 2,91 2
aa4\:tlRii:tWJf:::l:Jmml[:;i,;:l;jjj@{::m:;:::;:j;;;:{mt:::{:tt/;:::::::::t:%W
Vacation Annual Hours (In be.e) 216 168 1 92 240
Sick leave Amull Hours (In bue) 144 134 134 1 80
SUbtotal 360 302.4 326.4 420
I TOTAl COMPENSATlON DETAIL
,
SUbtotal
$4,935 $4,906 $5,084 $4,683
6.83% 4.60% 7.50"- 5.36"-
$337 $226 $381 $251
No No No No
No $25 $127 $45
No $123 $51 $117
Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary No
$0 $148 $178 $162
$433 $379 $389 $460
$101 In Medical $61 $67
$12 $4 $7 $5
$1,036 $1 ,030 $1,068 $984
$42 $20 $26 $38
$72 $71 $74 $68
$1,696 $1,504 $1,625 $1,621
Mihthlidwii\si&N;\};:W::@:jj@::j::jMWB::::/::::mt:;:{:lj{::{mmj::::
HQiidii::::;l?j::::rr:::::;:j)l:{:::{W:j}::::::}:m:::@:::tm::m::m)jj:}::t::::{):rmrt:{
Holiday In Ueu Pay C% of bu.}
Holldav Pay
CJjh~r,,;;:;,:::"':::::'::;;;;":":::::miiiBJhij::;nlt::::(:mj:/U)U ...;.....:.;.:..':::;
Lonae\'ltv Pay
Educationallncenttv.
EMTIOERB Cerlficatlon
Deferr.d Compensation
SUbtotal
:tif.ii&WiNJi1eiifiiiNt.....
Medlcallnauranc.
Dentallneurance
life Inllurance
Peneion
C10thlna Allowance
Medicare
I TOTAL COMPENSAnON SUMMARY ~
Monthlv Baae Sal8I"Y 4,935 4,906 5,084 4,683
Holiday Pav 337 226 381 251
Benefits:
Cuh SUpplements 0 148 178 162
InaurancelBenetta 1,696 1.504 1,625 1,621
SUbtotal 1,696 1,652 1,803 1,783
TOTAL 6,968 6,784 7,268 6,718
Benetlt Ratio 41.19% 38.27% 42.96"- 43.43%
Total Comp Hourty Rate $28.71 $27.95 $29.95 $27.68
Not.:
t. """'ton pIIP 2.5')(, pfIf hour When UtIIgntKJ to aquad (ijfer fNlY.
2. Total compsn88lJon MUIIY'* doa not Indue>> work..' compsnsatJon costs..
The Davis Compatry, 7Win Valley Fue A.genda
Appendix B-3
1993-94 TWIN VALLEY TOTAL COMPENSATION
FIRE LIEUTENANT
Fire u..n.,..nt
To'" eomfMnutJon Analpl_
Dougherly
Utlenn~
PI.unton
AJ.",.da
County
56
2,912
192
134
SUbtotal 326.4
ITOTAL COMPENSATlON DETAIL ~
Mtmmii]!QU::.Q6~i)ti.{::i:r>:::f:::l)'{i{i:t::m{tJ:t:::j:j> $4,622
#61idlrii.il,;;':::::::::mm::;:i:\,;;;:,}:;;;::jt:mt?:i:::::ttl@m::wWm:H:::@@m:::Hil{{::,,:jjjj:!,
Holldav In U.U Pay (% of bua) 7.50%
Holiday Pav $347
Ci*iA~;';"";";...;'::.:;:;::;;;;;;;';..'J:""N.,~FiI:::::\)Ht::;@U::::t::iJ,i.\\:::j::i.j;P:
Lonae\llty Pav No
Educational Incentlv. $1 1 6
EMTIDEAB C"'f1cation $46
DefeITed Compenaation Voluntary
SUbtotal $ 1 62
ini6"~Mffli:fNA":21;:'::t;n:ftitjfm)::::fr/j:::;::::?
Medical Inauranc. $389
Dental Insurance $61
Ute Inaurance $7
Pension $971
Clothing Allowance $26
Medicare $67
SUbtotal $1 ,521
I TOTAL COMPENSATlON SUMMARY ~
4,622
347
SUbtotal
162
1,521
1,683
6,651
43.91%
$27.41
TOTAl
Benefit Ratio
Total Com Hou Rate
/iJJlIE..
1. Pl#NlSlUJton pa18 2.5" pt1f hour whflflUBIgntJdto ~d aw.r plIy.
2. ToIlll compenutJon ansIr* ao. not /ncIUa. wot*cn' compenutJon ccwts.
The Davis Compmry. Twin Valley Fue AgellCiu
Appendix B ~ 4
1993-94 TWIN VALLEY TOTAL COMPENSATION
FIRE ENGINEER
F/,.. Eng/,...,
ToIII/ eom"."..Uon AnaIyMa Doughlllty
S&,.,G[IUW;:@~~]:il}i:@f':'{l:m~?::~:m:m:::m:}:~:::~~:':':~:::::;~~:H!:\@m:f
HoU1'8 D<< week (average)
Houre per y_r
:v;_:~;~nm.:!~~i:~~~~~~~~~1If~~~fI~}!~jrj~~~~~~jm~~iij1t!~;~j~~~~ i~i~;~i ~ i~ii~[!;;~;i~~!j~(!:!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~ :~:~l~)~::
Vacation Annual HoLon (In baae)
Sick L_v. AMuaJ Houra On baae)
L""'rm~
PI....nton
Alameda
County
SUbtotal
56 56 56 56
2,912 2.912 2,912 2,912
240 168 192 240
144 134 134 180
384 302.4 326.4 420
ITOTAL COMPENSATION DETAIL ~
jjimihM~:~S;~ijfm:i:t]?l?}/:Nm::/t:M'?:::::::::::::::iNWm::?t $4,097 $4,449 $4,401 $4, 176
Hbiid:lW?ff:?i?)i}:::}')::::::ti:::'::::'}}:::')::m::::[:[:::)::::lm}Hfirm:: . :~;: :~::::::;.::::
Holiday In Ueu Pay rx. of baae) 6.83% 4.60% 7.50% 5.36%
Holiday Pay $280 $205 $330 $224
bjiiii":":'::::::::::::":'::::::::'::::::::':'::hl6,.?d~{{:tt::::tt::::tlJt\i?)::::::
Lonae\llti Pay No No No No
Educational Incentive No $25 $1 1 0 $45
EMTIDEFIB Cer1Ificatlon No $1 1 1 $44 $1 04
Deferred Compenaatlon Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary No
SUbtotal $0 $1 36 $1 54 $149
~injilni~iAuMm.NW6,.'WJ:t:::::f[mi:}:r}?1??m :.:.;.;.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
Medical Inaurance $433 $379 $389 $460
Dental lnaurance $101 In Medical $61 $67
ute Insurance $1 2 $4 $7 $5
Pension $860 $934 $924 san
Clothlno Allowance $42 $20 $26 $38
Medicare $59 $65 $64 $61
Subtotal $1 ,saT $1 ,402 $1 ,471 $1 ,5rJ7
I TOTAL. COMPENSATION SUMMARY ~
MonthlY Base SaJery 4,097 4,449 4,401 4,176
Holiday Pay 280 205 330 224
Benelits:
Cuh Supplemen" 0 136 154 149
InsurancelS.,,,,, 1.507 1,402 1,471 1,507
SUbtotal 1,507 1,538 1,625 1,657
TOTAL 5,884 6,192 6,356 6,057
Benelit Ratio 43.62% 39.17% 44.42% 45.03%
Total ComD Hour1v Rate $24.25 $25.5'2 $26.19 $24.96
!i!J!!!!!.i.
1. PlMMnton par- 2M' ".. hour wh." ...gned to IIqIad aw.r fJlIY.
2. Tots! COfJIpf1fJMJJoI VIIIyrIIs ~ not Include wOl1ctn' cDmptlfl6lll1on cOlltB.
The Davis Compcury, Twin Valley Fue Agencies
Appendix B - 5
1993-94 TWIN VALLEY TOTAL COMPENSATION
FIREFIGHTER
FI,.nghNr Alamed.
To",1 Complln..tJon Analy_ Dougherty Lh1errnDIW PI....nlon County
:S&MIiJi1iCWiiWWm::::::mr::::SlmW):@::::::IIII:m::im:rnmI/:rmII:::/
Hours per week (average) 56 56 56 56
Hours per year 2.e'~ 2 2,912 2,912 2,91 2
tiM:i'iiRti:f::::::::::l:i:::/i:mIf::}:::::t:i]i:tf::II, j j j ~) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~m!~~j~~~~~ij~i~~~~jij~ !jji!i 1~~~ ~~~ ~ 1(~ ~: jf
Vacation Annual H oura (In bese) 21 6 168 192 240
Sick L..ve Annu81 Houra On base) . 44 134 134 1 60
,
Subtotal 360 302 326 420
ITOTAL COMPENSATION DETAIL ,
,i#8;ifJWFiU.j&il"&%rWfl1{:",m::::f::::t]:)!~r?%:::::::'":'f::::::::::: $3 .!96 $4,035 $4,192 $3.903
:HCi>>a.,IIIr:::m:Wwtfi:i:i::::!mrwmmmmt:rm:::::::;::::r:::::!!!i::::::!m:!:Jmr:: ....
Holiday In Ueu Pay (% of bue) S.!::!% 4.80% 7.50% 5.3S%
Holiday Pay ~ $186 $314 $209
.bjih.:smm~::61B":':JJf!!::i~:ImJi:{'n:':...'::::.::::" .............
Longe'o'ltf Pay No No No No
Educational Incentive No $25 $105 $45
EMTIDEFlB Cer1Ificatlon No $101 $42 $98
Deferred Compeneation Volu".tary Voluntary Voluntary No
Subtotal $0 $126 $147 $143
:jhiWiifii;./tiii,.fi&:fNij.:2J/r{~:n..;:.::.,: . .,. .:::'~':::W
Medical Insurance S433 $379 $389 $4S0
Dental Insurance "01 In Medic. $61 $67
ute Insurance '12 S4 $7 $5
Pension sa16 $847 $880 $820
Clothing Allowance $42 $20 $26 $38
Medicare $56 $59 $S1 $57
Subtotal $1 ,482 $1 ,309 $1 ,424 $1 ,446
I TOTAL COMPENSATION SUMMARY ,
Monthly Base Salary 3.896 4,035 4,192 3,903
Holiday Pay 266 186 314 209
Benetlts:
Cash Supplements 0 126 147 143
lnaurance/Benetts 1.462 1,309 1,424 1,446
SUbtotal 1,462 1,435 1,571 1,589
TOT At 5.624 5,855 e,on 5,701
Benefit Ratio ~.36"1. 4O,1S% 44.97% 46.07%
Total Comp Hourlv Rate $23.18 $23.3J $25.04 $23.49
!t9!s;.
1. PlsUanton ".,. 2.M' per hour whflfl atIIgntKJ to ~d d1MIr ~.
2. ToilU compenatlon M8/yIIiB do.- not IncIudtl worlr..' compeMSDon C'ClIIts.
The Davis Company, Twin VaUty Frre Agmciu
Appendix B - 6
FIRE COMPANY WAGE & BENEFIT COSTS
Twin Valley Fire Departments
ALAMEDA
DOUGHERTY LIVERMORE PLEASANTON COUNTY
4
4
3
1.00
1
1
1.00
1
1
56 56 56 56
2,912 2,912 2,912 2,912
216 168 192 216
86 86 86 86
Subtotal 302 254 278 302
Total Available Work Hourt 2,610 2,658 2,634 2,610
Ratio: Total/Av8llable HoUrt 1.12 1.10 1.11 1.12
FinIriOhter'A::::FTE:';&Coit':::::,\::::::u::rrt?:::::\::':,,""';:::;::: .....
Staff on shift
FTEII/shlft
Total FTEs (ahlft x 3)
Total Compensation/month
Annual Cost
Engih..r:9:FTE&Ycc)ilr',\ .... :'",,',::\/:'r::,:,::"::::::,':,:,:::,
Staff on shift
FTEa/shlft
Total FTEa (ahlft x 3)
Total Compensation/month
Annual Coat
Cantiltn:;":FTE:&:::C08t:::;,,,)U/::'(:';' """,':, ,',',....... ."
Staff on shift
FTEs/shlft
Total FTEs (shift x 3)
Total COmDer1sation/month
Annual Cost
TOTAL WAG E/B EN EFIT COSTS
/:J9!J!!;.
1. SIck '-WI ~ 011 annUlli aocruaJ at ~ UMI.
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.12 1.10 1.11 1.12
3.35 3.29 3.32 3.35
5,624 5,655 6,077 5,701
225,941 223,081 241 ,WJ7 229,006
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.12 1.10 1.11 1.12
3.35 3.29 3.32 3.35
5,884 6,192 6,356 6,057
236,380 244,238 253,010 243,302
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.12 1.10 1.11 1.12
3.35 3.29 3.32 3.35
6,968 6,784 7,268 6,718
279.WJ 1 267,592 289,30 1 269.860
742,222 734,911 784,218 742,168
......."u
The Davis Company, Twin Valky Fire Agencies
Appendix B - 7
APPENDIX C
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COSTS
Projected Estimated
Fire Year Replaoeaeat RepJaoeaeat Fahre
Type of Bqaipaeat Departaeat A,oqaircd Date Co,t" val..
Admin Vebicle. (10 }Cars)
V.a Iateraatioul Metro l.iYerm_ 1965 1975 20.000 20.000
OMC Pick Up PIea..alO a 1981 1991 20.000 20.000
Ford 112 Toa Do.pert)' 1!llU 1994 20.000 20.000
Ford Br..co4x4 Do.pert)' 1985 1995 20.000 21l,6OO
Stoaer Modll1u Ambtiuce-Educatioa Doaperty 1985 1995 20.000 21l,600
CUvrolct Celebrity PIea..alOa 1985 1995 21l,000 21l,600
Sedaa Fard LTD LivenD_ 1985 1995 20.000 21l,600
Pick Up - CIleY 5-10 Livermore 1985 1995 21l,000 21l,600
Pick Up - Fard Raapr l.iYerm- 1916 1996 20,000 21,218
CUM-old. BIua' PIea..alOa 1987 1997 20.000 2U55
Ford VICtoria PIea..alOa 1987 1997 20.000 21.&55
Ford Br...co Uwrmare 1987 1997 20.000 21.855
Ford Tempo PIea..alOa 1987 1997 20.000 21.855
Ford Tempo Plea..alOa 1988 199& 20.000 :z:z,s 10
V.a Ford Aeroctar UwrmCll'Cl 1989 1999 20.000 23, 185
Ford 3/4 Toa Do.pert)' 1989 1999 20,000 23, 185
Dodge Diplom.t Do.pert)' 1989 1999 20.000 23, 185
V.. Dodge B-350 Uwrmare 1989 1999 20.000 23,185
Ford Crowa Victoria Do.pert)' 1990 :zooo 20.000 23,181
Ford Tempo Plea.. 810 a 1990 :zooo 20.000 23,181
Pick Up - Pard Raapr Uwrmare 1990 :zooo 20,000 23,181
Sedaa Ollla Uwrmare 1990 :zooo 20.000 21.855
Pick Up - Pard Raapr Uwrmare 1991 :zoo 1 20.000 24,597
Ford Tnna Do.petty 1992 :zoo:z 20.000 25,335
SedaaFc:I'd Uwrmare 1993 :z003 20.000 26,095
Sedaa Do.petty 1994 2004 20.000 26,878
Pick Up - OM: Sierra l.iYerm- 1994 2004 20.000 26,&78
Ford Tnru Do.pert)' 1994 2004 20.000 26,&7&
Command Vebicle (7 }Car.)
Commu.d. Ve~ Do.pert)' 1994 :zoo 1 40,000 49,195
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF TEN YEAR REPLACEMENT COST (1993-2003) - $4,787,911
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF REPLACEMENT COST $8,870,000 $11,193,359
INVENTORY & REPLACEMENT PROJECTIONS - CAPITAL EQUIPM ENT
TWIN VAJ.J.E( FIRE DEPARTMENTS
. Replacemelllt cog do Bot IOtal to iadiYidul fire departme.t pro6lel ia appealk. All replacemul COIItIllaw beelll
coawrted 10 a comm... baiL '
.. Eqllipmc:at acMda1ed prior to 1994 is ...amed 10 lIaWl bec:a replaced aad is aotla tU 10 year totaL
7Win Valley Fire Service Study
Appendix C - 2.
Projcetcd Estimated
Fin V.ar ll.pIa~....t Il.plu....t Fahre
Type of aqaip...t Depart...t &qairecl Date Co.t- Val..
FRONT UNE APPARATUS
EApDCI (20 Jean)
Bqbe-~__12S1 Pleallato. 1969 1989 2&S.000 2&S,OOO
Bqiae-CrowIlI2S3 PIea..to. 1970 1990 2&S.000 2&S.000
BqilIe-V.. Pdt LiwfaClft 1973 1993 2&S.000 2&S.000
BqIa.e- V.. Pdt UwnaClft 1973 1993 2&$,000 2&S,OOO
B.p.e- BoudBa. l2S2 PIea..to. 1975 1995 2&$.000 293,550
B-Pae-1742 Alameda Conly (#1) 1976 1996 2&S.000 302,357
Baci--V" Pelt P_per Do.perty 1971 1991 2&$.000 331.770
BqiAe- 0,.... r-per Do.peny 1!l1O 2000 2&$.000 340.305
Eqiae-Emll'pae)' 0_ (55' Sq.Irt) livenD.... 1.1 2001 2&$,000 350,514
Bqi__ V.. Pelt Puapel' Do.peny 1914 2004 2&$.000 30,016
Bpiae- Headricbo. Livermcn 1914 2004 2&$.000 30,016
BaP__V.. Pelt 1242 PIa..to. !!illS 2005 2&S.000 394,507
Bqi__Iawulioul Alameda Couty (Suol) 1!l86 2006 2&S.000 406,342
Bqiae- AlDene.. Saale LivermClft 1987 2007 2&S,OOO 418,532
Bqi__ Bed: l241 PIa..to. 19111 2001 2&5,000 431,018
Bqi.c- Ko...tck Uwrmore 1990 2010 2&S,ooo 457,341
Rapac- Pierce P_per Do.perty 1991 2011 2&S.000 471,062
Eqi__1741 Alameda Conly (#1) 1993 2013 2&5.000 499,749
TruckJ (IS yean)
Trlld:-S.1jplln 1273 PIea..toa 1981 1996 560,000 594,104
LTI-l00'Tnek livenD.... 19111 2003 560,000 730,673
Tnck no.perty 1994 2009 560,000 172,462
Patrol a: SpccialJ (IS J'CIUI)
Patrol-!au.ruliouI12l3 Plcellatoa 1975 1990 15.000 85,000
Patrol-OWe livenDore 1981 1996 85.000 90,177
Patrol-OMC 1211 PIea.atoa 1913 1991 15,000 95,661
Pattol-CHv LivermClft 1986 2001 85.000 104,539
Pattol-17U Alameda Conly (#1) 1986 2001 15,000 104,539
Patrol-OMC Livermore 1!l86 2001 15,000 104,539
Pattol-Clle\' Livermore 1!l86 2001 15.000 104,539
Pattol-CIIev UvenaClft 19111 2003 15,000 110,906
Patrol-OMC 12S2 PI.llatoa 1990 2005 15.000 114.233
S.ppon - I.u.rutioul PIea.atoa 1990 2005 15,000 114.233
Ford F-8uperdllty (SlIpportAir.t Up LivermClft 1990 2005 85,000 114.233
Medic Aid Vehicles (10 J'CIUI)
Sto.er Mod"'r Amblll..ce Do.perty 1914 1994 75.000 75,000
Squd-bu.natioul Re._ PI..atoa 1984 1994 75,000 75,000
Squd-1792 Alameda Co.aty (#8) 1986 1996 75,000 79,568
Stoaer Mod"'r Amb"'ace Doqllerty 1987 1997 75,000 11,955
Squ d- btenatioul Re.ClIe PIce.ato . 1988 1998 75.000 &4,413
Squd-btenalioul Re._ PIca..toa 1989 1999 75.000 16,946
Sq...d-1791 Alameda Conty (#1) 1991 2001 75,000 92,241
INVENTORY & REPLACEMENT PROJECTIONS - CAPITAL EaUIPM err
TWIN VAUEY FIRE DEPARTIENTS
. Replacem.t eoQ do aot total to iadividul6re c1epartllleat prcfilcs la appellliL All replacemeat ~ bye beea
co.w:rted to a _m~ b.lia.
7Win Valley Fire Service Study
Appendix C - 1.