Fire/EMS MSR Comment Log

COMMENTS RECEIVED AT LAFCO HEARING MAY 11, 2016 (Note: Comments are listed in order of speaker, but may include multiple comments raised later in the meeting or in subsequent email correspondence by the same person) 1. Igor Skaredoff, LAFCO Commissioner 1a. Can fire service effectively respond to wild land fires with the closing of ten fire stations in the County since 2009? Is wildland fire protection better now or worse? Response: The ten fire station closures since the 2009 MSR had a significant impact on responses to all call types within the entire fire service emergency response network in Contra Costa County. All wildland resources are cross-staffed by fire personnel who also staff structural firefighting apparatus including engines and trucks. The closure of fire stations and lack of funding to reopen those stations increases the workload on the remaining companies, creating a very busy response network. Because the resources are cross- staffed, when a fire engine is on an EMS call it is unavailable as a wildland engine resource. A high call volume caused by station closures affects the entire system. Increased resources are necessary to respond to wildland fires, as well as all other call types, because of the inter-related staffing. In addition to reduced stations, environmental factors have had a detrimental effect on wildland fire response. The increase in temperatures, longer wildland fire seasons, and the drought have all increased the number and complexity of wildland incidents. These increases, in turn, negatively affect responses to all other call types. CAL FIRE’s response varies based on the time of the year, level of response and the drawdown of CAL FIRE resources. During the regular fire season, CAL FIRE has one engine in the county; during peak season they have two. CAL FIRE dispatches at three different levels: “low” dispatches two engines, “medium” dispatches six engines and “high” dispatches eight engines. CAL FIRE uses many factors to determine these levels. It should be noted that CAL FIRE could take as long as one hour for its resources to arrive in the County for a State Responsibility Area (SRA) fire. During this time, local agencies handle all mitigation operations. (source: Chief Lance Maples, President of the Contra Costa County Executive Fire Chiefs Association, 7/20/16) Page 1 2016-8-3 1c. Is there any way out of the pension problem? How do we gain public trust and support for new funding (i.e., special taxes)? Response: Many of today’s pension problem are the result of decisions made many years ago, and will require many more years until accrued liabilities can be fully funded, even as adjustments (reduced pension benefits, etc.) are currently being made to address the problem. 1d. How do we gain public trust and support for new funding (i.e., special taxes)? Response: As recommended in the MSR, public education and outreach is important, particularly to inform the public about recent State changes to limit pension abuses and to create multiple (lower) tiers for pension benefits. 1e. A Standards of Cover “SOC” Study is a good idea. Response: Comment acknowledged. 2. Don Blubaugh, LAFCO Commissioner 2a. The report is very well done. Response: Comment acknowledged. 2b. How can a directly elected board raise more revenue than one that isn’t directly elected (e.g., ECCFPD)? Response: The report will be revised to indicate that independence could increase local accountability and responsibility for local funding, which in turn could improve prospects for local tax measures. A directly elected board does not have any additional access to funding compared to the current appointed board. 3. Mike McGill, LAFCO Commissioner 3a. Don’t refineries have their own fire protection services? Can you provide more information about fire brigades? Response: Yes, it is correct that most refineries have their own brigades, however, refinery brigades and fire protection services often require additional assistance in the event of a major fire or other major incident. Most fire brigades are comprised of refinery employees who often are not available 24/7. Additional information has been added to Chapter 4 Overview of Fire Services, Fire Service Providers, about private brigades. Page 2 2016-8-3 3b. I like the response time data. This information should get broad exposure; the public should be asked their priorities. Response: Comment acknowledged. 3c. Will development fees and special taxes paid by new development mean that new development will receive better services than other, older existing areas? Response: That may occur, however, an increase in stations, staff and vehicles means that more engines provide more regional capacity and will be available to respond to fires, and to respond when other engines are unavailable. 3d. Retirement systems get a “bad rap”; it is not widely understood that most of the costs are for past employees. CCCERA is helping to reduce long-term liabilities by changing its assumptions. The Taxpayers Association needs “educating.” Response: Comment acknowledged. 4. Candace Andersen, LAFCO Commissioner 4a. The report is an accurate assessment of where we are. At a recent meeting the Board of Supervisors approved sharing of a chief, but not consolidation. Response: Comment acknowledged. 4b. As a member of the CCCERA Board, I believe that CCCERA made the right decision and is well aware of the impact of its decision, and in June, will be looking at possible changes to other assumptions (other factors, such as mortality tables, that could also have an impact). This (fire service pension costs) is something that will require additional revenue from somewhere. Response: Comments acknowledged. 5. Mary Piepho, LAFCO Commissioner 5a. On page 3, clarify “East County,” which, in this report, does not include Antioch or Pittsburg. Response: Comment acknowledged. The report will be revised accordingly. 5b. On page 3 the report notes that there is limited property tax associated with the Phillips Refinery property; what causes that? Page 3 2016-8-3 Response: Phillips can request a reassessment from the County Assessor to reduce its assessed value and property taxes at any time, and if its revenues from the refinery were lower, they could justify a reduction in value. In addition, when the refinery was annexed to RHFPD in 1996, property tax generated to the County was split between the County and RHFPD. Under the tax share agreement, RHFPD received a 10% share of incremental future growth in property taxes only, which was less than its share of incremental taxes in that area at the time, and the District did not receive a share of the “base,” or taxes paid prior to the annexation and change in tax allocations. Therefore the District does not receive its typical share of full value of property in the District, just a reduced share of the growth in value since 1996. Any incremental changes in value, including reductions and downwards reappraisals, have a significant impact on the District’s revenues. 5c. The loss of revenue to redevelopment and impacts to fire service (and recapturing back of revenues) should be quantified if possible. This is significant, in addition to the pension issue. Response: According to the County Auditor, approximately 10 percent of fire district revenues were diverted to redevelopment in Fiscal Year 2015-16. RHFPD lost nearly 30 percent of the revenue it would otherwise have received, and ECCFPD about 5 percent. This information will be added to the MSR. 5d. The discussion of DUCs on page 6 should include reference to the State median income. Response: The report will be revised to include the State median income of $61,400. 5e. The discussion of “Governance Options” should describe the basis for the conclusion regarding the infeasibility of a “remnant district” following city detachment. The report should also further explain how the liabilities would be addressed. Response: A detailed analysis of the impact of detachments has not been prepared; however, because Brentwood accounts for over 50 percent of the property taxes of the ECCFPD, the loss of revenues from detachment of Brentwood would not be offset by cost savings from detaching one fire station, which represents one-third of the total stations. In addition, it is unlikely there would be a reduction in overhead, thus the average cost per remaining ECCFPD station would increase. Because Oakley represents about 20% of assessed value, its detachment would present less of an impact on the remaining ECCFPD; however, the latter scenario is unlikely since Oakley’s gain in tax revenue would be insufficient to fund its station, and likely additional mitigation payments to ECCFPD would worsen Oakley’s funding problem. Page 4 2016-8-3 It is likely that LAFCO would allocate existing liabilities between the detaching entity and the remaining district; thus the detaching entities would not only assume the burden of annual operations, but would also be responsible for a share of current and long-term ECCFPD liabilities. LAFCO would determine this allocation, as well as any required mitigation payments, at the time of detachment. Additional text has been added to the report to further explain this conclusion. 5f. How would district liabilities be managed if dissolution was the outcome of failed task force efforts for ECCFPD? Is there an example of how that is managed? What are next steps, how do we prepare for that? Response: In the event of dissolution, a successor agency would be designated to wind-up the affairs of the dissolved district. As the entity with the greatest amount of assessed value within the District, the City of Brentwood would be designated the successor agency. Debts would be repaid over time from ECCFPD property tax. However, it is unclear what agency would take responsibility for fire protection to the unincorporated areas of ECCFPD. 5g. Creation of an independent board is up to the ECCFPD District; LAFCO cannot require it. Response: Comment acknowledged, that is correct. 5h. On page 11: Is it correct that ECCFPD cannot impose a development impact fee? Response: That is correct. Fire districts can prepare an impact fee nexus study, but must rely on the cities and county to adopt and collect the fee on behalf of the fire district. 5i. Any idea of the cost for a Standards of Cover study? Response: The SOC for ECCFPD was anticipated to cost $80,000; depending on the complexity of a study, for example with multiple agencies as in West County, the cost could approach $120,000 or more. 5j. On page 12, is Kensington call data not reported and publicly available on a routine basis? Response: Call data for the Kensington Station, and calls into Kensington, are listed monthly, however, the data is presented without any form of summary, requiring the reader to add several dozen items in order to determine aid provided vs. aid received. 5k. On page 13 regarding the RHFD and the absence of significant annexations or consolidations among west county agencies due to lack of interest: how do we drive Page 5 2016-8-3 policy change when we don’t have authority to do that? An SOI is not necessarily considered a big hammer. Response: Comment acknowledged. 5l. At yesterday’s ConFire meeting, it was reported that there were 222 arson investigations from January 1st through April 30th. Of those, 151 were confirmed arson or suspicious (and of course more calls than just these). Response: Comment acknowledged. 5m. Response times have improved in all 4 EMS zones, all above 94.7% since the new EMS contract at the start of the year. Response: Comment acknowledged. According to the EMS Agency, final audited numbers will be forthcoming soon; at the present time, the effects of the new ConFire/AMR contract relative to the County’s standards and requirements are not known with certainty. 5n. It would be helpful to have more info on ISO ratings; higher ISO ratings have a significant impact on homeowners’ insurance premiums. This means dollars and cents to families and businesses. Response: Many insurance companies no longer rely on ISO ratings for establishing rates; however, poor ISO ratings generally correlate with other factors that do affect property damages in particular areas, and other factors used by insurance companies to determine rates. No definitive data is available on the relationship between ISO ratings and insurance rates. 5o. The cartoon video explaining fire service in ECCFPD should be shown at the next meeting. It would also be helpful to see pictures or video of a house fire in real time, with firefighters pulling out hoses, etc. Response: Comment acknowledged. 6. Sharon Burke, LAFCO Commissioner 6a. What are the implications of the State Responsibility Area (SRA) fee ($145)? There is a need for educating homeowners so they understand what they are paying for. Also, these homes are inside a fire district; if a fire affects one of these homes, does CalFire show up first, or the district? Response: That SRA fee is a fire prevention fee, not fire fighting fee. CAL FIRE responds with mutual aid if needed to non-SRA areas. CAL FIRE has primary Page 6 2016-8-3 responsibility for wildland fire protection and assumes responsibility for wildland fire suppression. 6b. Nearly half of Kensington’s calls are for service outside of its boundaries; therefore, comparing total calls to Kensington’s population significantly overstates the calls/population measure. Response: Comment acknowledged. A footnote has been added to Table 6 which indicates that the calls per 1,000 Kensington residents are actually half the ratio shown based on total calls. 6c. Do any fire districts get Prop. 172 funds? A Mendocino fire agency recently was successful in getting these funds. Prop 172 was passed in November 1993, and a lot of ads featured firefighters; voters thought they were voting to help fire districts. According to a May 2016 published report in the Press-Democrat (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5585183-181/mendocino-county-fire- districts-to?ref=TSM) the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors recently voted to grant its fire agencies a portion of Prop 172 public safety funding. The report noted that Sonoma County has also granted its fire agencies a portion of Prop 172 funds, along with Colusa County. As lack of revenue is the principal issue for the two fire agencies which are the emphasis of the Fire MSR, there should be a discussion in the MSR of recent county decisions to grant Prop 172 funding to fire agencies and the possibility that Contra Costa fire agencies should receive their fair share of Prop 172 funds from the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. (sent via email 2016-05- 19). Response: Comment acknowledged. The topic of providing Prop. 172 funds has been raised at the County BOS Finance Committee on March 16, 2016, as noted in the MSR. The County Board of Supervisors has the ability to allocate Prop. 172 funds among public safety providers. To-date, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has chosen not to allocate funds to fire service agencies. The allocation of Prop. 172 funds is a policy decision to be made by the Board of Supervisors, and would provide important needed funding for fire districts, although a re-allocation would result in less funding for existing beneficiaries of Prop. 172 funds. A detailed analysis of Prop. 172 allocation options is beyond the scope of this MSR. 6d. The northwest portion of the unincorporated community of Alamo, an area of approximately 400 homes, is part of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, while the remainder of Alamo is part of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. It is generally recognized as an issue with emergency response when a community is split between two fire service providers. During the 2009 failed incorporation effort for the Town of Alamo, San Ramon Valley FIre Protection District identified this illogical boundary as an issue and requested LAFCO to detach this area from ConFire and annex it to SRV Fire if the incorporation was successful. Since the incorporation was not successful, the annexation was not pursued but the Page 7 2016-8-3 boundary issue remains. Some emergency response issues in this area include a hilly area with narrow winding roads not built to current standards, and a large portion, about a mile, of the Kinder Morgan jet fuel pipeline runs through this area. I believe the consultants should analyze this boundary issue and make a recommendation as to which fire service provider can best provide emergency medical and fire services to this neighborhood. As a matter of disclosure, I would like to note that my personal residence is in this area. (Sent via email 2016-05-19.) Response: During LAFCO’s MSR data collection process, fire service providers were asked to identify areas of potential boundary change; none were identified in this area. The MSR focused on two districts and did not investigate the boundaries of other districts unless issues were raised during the data collection process or during LAFCO’s preparation of the MSR RFP and Scope of Work. 6e. There is no discussion of the formation of County Service Area EM-1 and its zones in the report. According to Contra Costa LAFCO records, CSA EM-1 was formed with two zones, Zone A which is all of San Ramon Valley Fire and Zone B which is the remainder of the county. Zone A pays a different assessment than Zone B. An examination of the ballot materials and LAFCO records reveals that the City of San Ramon objected to the formation of CSA EM-1 since SRV Fire runs its own ambulance service. Therefore, the CSA was formed with two zones with two different assessments, with Zone A paying a markedly lower assessment vs. Zone B. A recent Contra Costa County counsel opinion, issued April 2015, concerning CSA P-6 and its numerous zones, directed that zone funding should be returned to source and utilized only to benefit the zone paying the assessment. Since CSA EM-1 with two zones is the same legal entity in the same county as CSA P-6 with multiple zones, the County Counsel's opinion should presumably also apply to CSA EM-1. Contra Costa County Emergency Services does not currently return Zone A funds to San Ramon Valley Fire; they are pooled with Zone B funds and allocated countywide. I believe there should be a discussion in the MSR of whether Zone A and Zone B funds should be pooled separately and returned to source (sent via email 2016-05-19). Response: Text has been added to the MSR to describe the zones and different assessments in each zone. A detailed analysis of the policy and legal issues surrounding the current allocation formulas for CSA EM-1 funding are beyond the scope of this MSR. 7. Candace Andersen, LAFCO Commissioner If the County gave Prop. 172 funds to fire districts, it would be necessary to find funds to backfill the loss to current public safety programs funded by Prop. 172. Response: Comment acknowledged. Fire services were primary in promoting Prop. 172, but county boards of supervisors were given the money and the authority to Page 8 2016-8-3 determine how to spend it. There are fire agencies receiving Prop. 172 funds in other counties. See also the related comments raised by Sharon Burke, above. 8. Lewis Broschard, Deputy Chief, ConFire, on behalf of Chief Carman 8a. ConFire supports a 90-day pause; more information is needed on the impact of CCCERA changes; ConFire estimates an annual cost increase of $4.5 million to $5 million. This will have a material impact on fire service countywide resulting in delays in re-opening fire stations and on auto/mutual aid. Response: LAFCO has extended the period until the next public hearing to allow time to receive information on the potential impacts of changes to CCCERA assumptions. 8b. CFD’s are important to fund the personnel needed to staff new stations. LAFCOs should condition its approval of annexations on adequate development fees Response: Comment acknowledged. 9. Chief Henderson, ECCFPD 9a. Response time has 3 components: (1) process time (call received, dispatcher processes it); (2) notification to getting on the engine; (3) actual drive time to scene. Travel time differs greatly between urban and suburban/rural areas. ECCFPD commissioned a master plan for $85,000 which shows a 9 station model (249-sq-mi area, 115,000 people) plus keeping CalFire Amador contract. Districts have no control over retirement costs, but must pay 100% (as must their employees). ECCFPD hasn’t been able to keep a standard number of employees, which means that their rate goes up and down according to number of employees. Response: Comment acknowledged. 9b. On June 6, the ECCFPD Board will discuss a 2-part election process: on the ballot there would be two questions regarding ECCFPD board independence: (1) Do voters want a directly elected board? And (2) if so, here are the following candidates running (vote for 5). Response: Comment acknowledged. Page 9 2016-8-3 9c. On the subject of auto-mutual aid, it is important for ECCFPD to balance low priority medical calls against public safety. We are trying to put public safety and firefighter safety as the priority compared to low priority medical calls. Response: Comment acknowledged. 9d. Sprinklering of residential units has been a requirement since 1985 in East Contra Costa County. Both Oakley and Brentwood adopted this quickly after that. Response: Comment acknowledged. 9e. There is a discount on the CalFire assessments if a property is within a fire district. “LU100” inspections are underway. The services funded by the fee have nothing to do with fire suppression, just fire prevention. Response: Comment acknowledged. 10. Chief Maples, El Cerrito/Kensington FPD 10a. Speaking as President of Executive Fire Chiefs’ Association) please consider the letter presented—CCCERA’s decision will impact the districts into the millions. Redevelopment bonds continue to require diversion of tax increment. The MSR should include more information about this diversion. Response: Comment acknowledged, the report has been revised to include additional information about the diversion of tax increment. Additional information on further CCCERA changes will be added if available prior to final MSR. 10b. There is an issue regarding the SRA fee in the Kensington area. Nine homes have appealed. Response: Comment acknowledged. 10c. A Standards of Cover study in West County has been discussed since 2009, and is needed. SOC’s are expensive; preliminary research showed it would cost over $100,000 for just El Cerrito, Kensington, Pinole, RHFD. Response: Comment acknowledged. 10d. The reference on page 12 should be corrected: Kensington call data is reported to the Kensington FPD Board monthly, and is available on the District’s website. Would prefer that this section be removed from the report. Response: Comment acknowledged. Call data for the Kensington Station, and calls into Kensington, are listed monthly and reported to the KFPD Board; however, the Page 10 2016-8-3 data is presented without summarizing calls in/calls out of Kensington, requiring the reader to add several dozen items in order to determine aid provided vs. aid received. The MSR text has been clarified. 10e. On page 95 there is a typo: “El Cerrito” should be replaced with “Kensington.” Response: The report will be corrected. 10f. The chart on page 26 is significant, as it shows a reduction of 10 stations from 65 to 55 since 2009. Response: Comment acknowledged. 11. Vince Wells, Union President at United Professional Firefighters of Contra Costa County, Local 1230 11a. Not much has changed since 2009 report. Contra Costa County fire services are in trouble in all jurisdictions. Response: Comment acknowledged. 11b. I concur with the 2009 MSR that there should be some form of consolidation of Battalion 7. Response: Comment acknowledged. 11c. Station 74 in the PowerPoint presented to LAFCO today is the Pinole station that has closed (not Rodeo); RHFD has Station 75 in Rodeo and 76 in Hercules. Response: Comment acknowledged. 11d. Initially Battalion 7 had two stations in each jurisdiction (Pinole 73, 74; Rodeo- Hercules 75, 76, ConFire 69, El Sobrante 70, San Pablo). The Pinole station closure hasn’t been identified as important to the Battalion 7 configuration. The loss of Rodeo will reduce the capability of Battalion 7 even further. Response: Comment Acknowledged 11e. The closure of Station 76 will create a serious problem, with only 4 stations remaining in that area while 5 stations are needed to respond to a fire, requiring El Cerrito assistance. Response: Comment acknowledged. 11f. “RHFPD” should be referred to as “RHFD.” Page 11 2016-8-3 Response: The District uses “RHFD” and “RHFPD” interchangeably, for example, their letterhead states “Rodeo Hercules Fire Protection District” while their website uses “Rodeo Hercules Fire District.” Because official documents are presented on the letterhead, this MSR uses “RHFPD,” recognizing that both references are in common use. Chief Hanley also confirmed that they use the acronyms interchangeably. 11g. Chevron has a full-fledged fire department, but others are a “brigade.” The others all have fire brigades. However, in the case of a large fire at refineries, other agencies must respond. Response: Comment acknowledged. 11h. Retirement and health benefit costs continue to increase. All of the fire agencies were affected by the de-pooling of unfunded liability. Four districts in CCCERA: MOFD, RHFPD, ConFire, ECCFPD, all pay their full share. RHFPD is the only one with 2% at 50—the others are at 3% at 50. The County and city leadership needs to step up, as the firefighters are doing their job to the best of their ability. Response: Comment acknowledged. 12. Gil Guerrero Local 1230, Captain in ECCFPD 12a. Time and staffing are of the essence. Discovery Bay has lost 3 residents to cardiac arrest because engines were unavailable to respond. There are multiple deaths on Hwy 4 (more helicopters out of that area than anywhere else in the county); no fire boat. ECCFPD has no paramedics (can’t administer drugs, have to wait for ambulance), and no ladder truck. Three engines respond to 6,900 calls annually. Training is lacking, and firefighters are getting tired and hurt. EBRPD does not relieve the burden of protecting major parks. Response: Comment acknowledged. 13. Joe Young, ECCFPD Director (speaking for himself) 13a. The recommendation for an elected board should be explained; disproportionate representation could distort decisions. Response: Fire district boards can be elected by division or population group per the Health and Safety Code. The MSR has been revised to clarify the recommendation for an elected board, which the MSR states could improve local accountability and increase the likelihood of successful tax elections. Also refer to comments by Don Blubaugh, above. Page 12 2016-8-3 14. Joe Young, ECCFPD Director 14a. The report implies a connection between ECCFPD board independence and improved funding. Response: The report will be revised to indicate that independence could increase local accountability and responsibility for local funding, which could improve prospects for local tax measures. Also refer to comments by Don Blubaugh, above. 14b. The report should clarify that Knightsen and Bethel Island are “rural,” similar to Crockett-Carquinez, and therefore a longer response time standard applies as well as variation in ISO ratings. Response: The report will be revised to indicate that the lesser standard applies. 14c. The new CCCERA assumption will not be in effect until FY 2017-18. UAAL costs are paid by the employer only. Response: Comment acknowledged. 15. Bryan Craig , RHFD Acting Chief 15a. It would be helpful to depict the relationship between mortality rates and response times. Response: Data is not readily available on response times and mortality, as the type of incident and/or injury varies so significantly. However, County EMS provided the following table illustrating the relationship between mortality and response times in the event of a cardiac event. 15b. The Phillips 66 refinery brigade is not there on weekends and nights. Page 13 2016-8-3 Response: Comment acknowledged. 15c. When the Phillips 66 refinery was annexed to RHFPD, the District received a small share of property tax increment; if that assessed value decreases RHFD feels this. Response: Comment acknowledged (also, see Response 5b to Mary Piepho). 15d. A lawsuit in Hercules means almost no tax base from the development to the RHFPD. I support consolidation of RHFD (i.e., administrative, functional, full, etc.) as small districts can’t survive. CCCERA decision will have an impact; the district won’t have any money for this increase in costs. Response: Comments acknowledged. 16. Ernie Wheeler, Director, RHFPD (speaking for himself) 16a. If Prop 172 funds are provided to fire districts, this may trigger a reduction in fire district revenue by ERAF 2 and ERAF 3. Response: ERAF 2 and ERAF 3 will not take property tax from fire districts if Prop. 172 funds are allocated to fire districts. OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED 17. Rob Piper, City of Pinole, email correspondence 2016-05-05. 17a. Table 5 is missing the city of Rodeo altogether. Response: Table 5 shows city population forecasts from ABAG; Rodeo is an unincorporated community, and is not shown in this table. See Table 21 for an estimate of projected Rodeo growth. 17b. Table 9 population numbers Rodeo/Hercules do not equal the numbers for Table #5 or Table #21. Response: Table 9 shows residents per station of 16,500 for RHFPD; with two stations, the total population is double, or approximately 33,000. Table 5 utilizes forecasts provided by ABAG; Table 21 utilized the Dept. of Finance 2015 estimate for Hercules, which was slightly lower than the ABAG forecast, but Table 21 has been revised in the Final Report to be consistent with the higher ABAG number shown in Table 5. Page 14 2016-8-3 18. Chief Stephen Healey, MOFD, email correspondence 2016-05-04. I have three minor typographical changes I noticed in the draft: 1. Page-1 Moraga-Orinda “FPD” not “FD” 2. Page-97 “Stephen” not “Steven” 3. Page D-3 “Risk-based staffing” not “seasonal staffing” at Station-45 Response: Comments acknowledged; the Final Report will be revised accordingly. 19. Patricia Frost, Director of EMS, Contra Costa County Health Services Dept., email correspondence 2016-05-13 and 2016-06-24. 19a. On page 20 they describe the co-location of the CCFPD and AMR dispatch. Please note that those efficiencies are operationalized differently for Richmond dispatch. While the projected dispatch efficiencies may occur for all calls where CCFPD dispatches both fire and ambulance. In Richmond this is NOT the case. Richmond Dispatch dispatches fire and then CCFPD dispatches the ambulance. So efficiencies of co-location of fire and ambulance dispatchers exist ONLY for calls where CCFPD is responsible for BOTH fire and ambulance dispatch and does not apply to Richmond for EMS ambulance services. Response: Comment acknowledged. The report will be revised as noted. 19b. In the MSR, references to response times and performance for 2014 or 2015 are based in old response time requirements. The system ambulance response zones were significantly updated based on population growth and in east county the urban response zones were changed as well. It is not clear to readers what the data reflects under the old EMS ambulance response zones vs the new ones. I recommend including both the old and the new response zone maps, and clarifying these changes for the public. I also recommend adding a table describing the new ambulance response requirements for public clarification. Response: Comments acknowledged; the Final Report will be revised accordingly. 19c. It is important to note that the EMS agency works with fire first responder agencies based on their capabilities and has the ability to modify and optimize dispatch medical response protocols that influence deployment of assets through medical control. Response: Comment acknowledged. 19d. There is no mention of emergency ambulance mutual aid issues in this document. Page 15 2016-8-3 Response: Comment acknowledged; the Final Report will be revised accordingly to indicate that mutual aid to MOFD was addressed through an agreement with ConFire at the same time the new ConFire/AMR contract was implemented. The new agreement addressed issues related to the delivery of ambulance services to help assure adequate levels of service to all communities. 20. Rick Artis, Kensington resident, email correspondence 2016-05-05. It is difficult to get useful information from the data in the KFPD Board packet. Many members of the community would greatly appreciate increased transparency and public access to the response information, as your consulting team suggested. Having worked through this with ECFD personnel (so that I could do the calculations myself), it is clear that monthly and yearly data dumps and summary reports yielding information similar to that provided to LAFCO as part of the MSR process, would take very little actual time - but allow for a much greater degree of transparency and accountability than citizens of Kensington are afforded currently. These reports (in excel format) could easily be regularly posted on the KFPD website, which would allow for appropriate public scrutiny. The El Cerrito budget shown on Table 4 should exclude payments for the KFPD contract. Response: Comments acknowledged. The report has been revised to adjust for the El Cerrito budget change as noted. The report also recommends additional call report subtotaling specific to KFPD calls in/out of Kensington. Page 16 2016-8-3