AgdaPkt 2012-05-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. 6.1.B. - Page 9 fhose eznployees, meaning tlleir cui�ent am�ual salary levels are.�xaaantaiz�.ed.iu�til t��.e sal�ries of other CAL FIRE employees catch up. However, solr�e immediate savings are ach.ie�ed due to scheduling dif.�erences. Unlike other fire departrilents in t11e Cotulty, CAL FIRE wo�ks on a 72- 1�our duty weelc, requiring a aninizxaiu�: oF 7 persans to staff�ach ei�gii�e with 3 people p�r day. All otl�.er �re depart�nents operating in the Coun�y use a 56-hour model requiring at least 9 ' persoiis per erigii�e for tk�e same level of'service. Althougl�the 72-l�our duty weelc model results in greater overtime pay, fl�e av�rall cost is lower. (See, Table in�1�?p�iidix 3,p.2) T11e Tnternatio�lal Associatio�i of Fxxe Fighters {IAFF), Loca12400, vc�hich represents inost o�the ' fire fighters in San Mateo County, has op�osed lacal govermnent entities entering ir�to contracts with CAL FIRE because it reduces the ntunber oF firei"igllters needed and the salary and benefits fhe�receive.� (CAL FTRE firef gh.tezs are represented k�y iAFF, Loca1288�.) There at'e typically huiiclreds of qualifaed applicants for evexy fir�-fighter job opening, r�ga.rdless of which entity has the ope�ling. Separately, a high regard for�l�e perfoilnance of all fire�f ghting units in the Couiaty, i�cll�ding those ri.in by CAL FIRE, was expressed by tlzose intervi�wed#�or t1�is Report. , CAL FZRE Does 1�1ot �u�anit tl�e Expec�ed Proposal ta San C�a�lo� WJ�en San Carlos issued its Request for Proposals, CAL FIRE�as among tl�e most active responders. From px�el�minary discussions, Saa�Carlos city staff estima�.ed that, by contracting wit1� CAL FIlZE, San Carlos would save befween $1.2 a11d$2 inillian per year. However, i7z a facsimile dated Nov�ml�er 18, 2010, four days before the proposal�was due, tl.�e Acting Directaz' - ot CAL FIRE informed San Carlos that it�would nat be sub�nztting a prapasal. The facszmz�e cit�d four reasons �'or its decision. The foui-�h rcasol�stated, in part: I laave sig��i�'icazit concerns regarding the socio-political �spects o�CAL FIRE pzavidzng �i�'e protection seivices to the Cxty o��a11 Carlos at�his time. CAL F�RE has entered into a�any 1oca1 goverrun�nt parinersl�.ips ave-r the years. To be successful, it is irnperati�e that t1�.ere is support �or 1;1�ese agreements a�nongsi. aIl the stakel�olde�s, iz�.cludi.ng public of�cia�s, Iocal citizens a�ld IaUor organizations, Tn the case of tlle City of San Car�os, there is concerr� �'ro�n regio�7a1 Legislative ine�nbers ai3d si.�niFicant opposition fronllocal Xabor organizations. Lacl�ix�g suppor� �rom th�se stakeholders, a proposed��artilership cau�d�ace legal challenges and be cast iz� a negatxve �zght by tk��med�a and tl�e community. The potential for iz�.creasec�costs ar�d sta�f time to address tllese iss�tes vvoulci be Uozne by CAL FTRE. (See, Apper�dix A fox full text a:f�k�is �acszx�xle.) Subsequent Grand Jury ix�tezviews can�'irLned t11at the above-cited faurtli reason was indeed�.he deciding facto�r for CAL FIRE. As a result of�l�is facsixz�ile fro�n�l�e Actiz�g Di�ecfor, dircct negotiatians between Sa11 Carlos and CAL F7RE were ended. ; ; San Ca;1os next consider�d sub-con�racting for fire sei�vices uaade�°tlae exislixa.g CAL F]RE ; co�ltract with San Mateo Countiy, rrom interViews, the Gr�d�u�y learnec�that the Acting � Source: �n iilterview co�iductec3 by the Graud Jury with an official froiz�Loca1 2400, : 3