Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> . 6.1.B. - Page 13 <br /> The issue cazn�before t11e two-meinber Finance and Operations Coanmittee (the F&O ', <br /> Commi�tee) on 7anuary 18, and February 15, 2011. <br /> 9. From tl�e Coiulty staf#�report of January �8, 2011, adjusted £oz a budgeta�ry zaazstake, CAL <br /> F�RE could�a�e saved San Carlos between approximately $600,000 and $2.5 inil�ion per <br /> year.6 <br /> Za. Fxozn �1ie County staff report of Ja��uary I8, 2011, in addition to su�stantial savings for <br /> San Carlos, Uritagizig San Carlos �ulder tha Coui�ty cont�•act wit1� CAL I'IRRE could have <br /> saved the County an additional $650,OOQ pex yea1. Nezthez-tlle savings to Saxi Carlos or <br /> the Coua�.ty were discussed by the F&O Committee on ranua�y 18. <br /> ��. From tl�e Coullty staff report of February 15, 2011, "County Fire has a budget reduction <br /> target of$218,$77 for FY 2011/12 witli tlle goai of eveiituaily elimilzatillg all $1 inillioil , <br /> in general fund cozztributions." (See, Appe�ldix C) ', <br /> 12. In lesponse to a request from the F&O Cozxan�zttee, CAL FIlZE pze�ared a cost estiinate ' <br /> for c�elivery of fire protection to�ive County citi�s (Redwood City, San Carlos, Bel�nont, <br /> Faster City and �an Mateo). Accorcling ta the County staff report of Fel�z-uary 15, 2011., <br /> i:he estizx�ated aggregate cost savings to those five citi�s could l�e vetweeyl$f,7 rnillioi� ' <br /> and $16.8 n�illion per y�as. <br /> 13. The CAL FTRE sezvice cast estimates and pote��iial savings �ar�11e County and�l�e�ive <br /> County cities wer�not discussed by tkie Committee membezs at the Fel�ruary 15, 201.l., <br /> F&O Committe�meeting. <br /> 1�. From the audio trailscripts of both the Janua�y 18 ��d Febru�x�y 1.5, 2��1 F&� <br /> Coznmittee me�trngs, Su�ervisor Adrienne Tissier said i1�at the Governor had cailed for ' <br /> CAL FIRE getting out of the urUan fire-fighting business, ' <br /> 1 S. The Governor's 3an��ary 10, 20x] recoza�mex�dations on CAL F�RE r�alignmez�t ax�ly , <br /> appliad to ,State Responsibility Areas az�d did.�aot ap�ly to co���racts wztk�Xacal <br /> jurzsdictioi�s, such as its contracts with San Mateo County or t11e Coastside Firc District. <br /> Thexe was z�o suggestion frorn the Governor�hat CAL FTR.E should curtail deli�very of <br /> uxUa�� fire protection sarvices furlded by counties or ciiies. <br /> 16, A�so during tl�e Feb;ruazy �5, 201� F&O Colnmiltee rnea�ing, the �u�ezvisors said that <br /> the County does not want to b�in�e f.��e-figk���ng business. T��e Supezvisars :�uxt��ez said <br /> ihey strongly stipported regional �'ire-pratection solutio�zs in the Couizty as a ineans to <br /> red�ce redt�ndant adinii�istrative azad ii�frasl�-uch�e costs ta t.l�e czties. <br /> 17. The S�.ipervisors recommended that Belmont and San Carlos eilter iz�.to �nediatiorl to <br /> con�:inu.e tl�eir joix�t�`ire depar�ment rvhile re�;ionalization alternatives could be ex�lored. <br /> Trom intexvicws and rneetil7g transci°ipts, most San Carlas and BelYnont officia�s stated <br /> there was Ii�:tie c�iance for��ediatzon�o be success£ul, ' <br /> ; <br /> �Tl�e Staff Report states that San C�rlos was paying about$63 million from its geizeral fiuld, 'T'lus is t�2ie,but the I <br /> �ctual cost fox��`ire services was$7.1 miilion,which is$800,000 nzare tha�i cited in the Siaff Report, Tt r�ould, <br /> 11�ere�'ax�e, be�nare correct to say tliai the savings fo San Carlos was bet�xreen$1.�4 million and$33 inillio�l. <br /> i <br /> � <br /> � <br />