HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-01 City Council (7)City of Palo Alto 6
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:FIRE
AGENDA DATE:July 1, 1996 CMR:327:96
SUBJECT:PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE CONTRACT FIRE
SERVICES TO THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AND THE
LOS ALTOS COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REQUEST
The purpose of this report is to present to Council the response to the request for proposal (RFP)
regarding contracting fire protection services in the City of Los Altos and the Los Altos County
Fire Protection District. Staff requests that Council approve the staff response.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that Council:
Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter of endorsement required by the RFP for fire
protection services from the City of Los Altos and the Los Altos County Fire Protection District.
Authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement with
the City of Los Altos and the Los Altos County Fire Protection District as outlined in this
proposal, should Palo Alto be selected from those responding to the RFP. Staff will return to
Council for approval of a recommended contract, if selected.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The content of this proposal is consistent with existing City policies and recommendations from
the Policy and Services Committee. Contracting of services to Los Altos and the Los Altos
County Fire Protection District will improve regional cooperation for the provision of
emergency services. Resource, risk and liability, and economic issues have been addressed
generally in the response to the RFP, but will be more specifically addressed in a formal
agreement.
CMR:327:96~ Page 1 of 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 14, 1996, staff reported to the Policy and Services Committee of the City Council
the findings of the firm of Ralph Andersen and Associates regarding the North County Fire
Services Consolidation Study with the jurisdictions of Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los
Altos County Fire Protection District (CMR 257:96).
As a result of the study, the City of Los Altos and the Los Altos County Fire Protection
District have recently decided to evaluate contracting for fire protection services. A request
for proposal has been developed and sent to Palo Alto, Mountain View, and the Santa Clara
County Central Fire Protection District. Staff has prepared the attached response to this
request. In accordance with provisions in the RFP, City Council endorsement of the sections
identified in the attached letter of endorsement is required to proceed for consideration by
the City of Los Altos and the Los Altos County Fire Protection District.
All three agencies receiving RFPs responded, with the City of Palo Alto submitting the
lowest cost response. After reviewing the proposals, the Los Altos City Council and the Los
Altos County Fire Protection District Board of Fire Commissioners voted to eliminate the
City of Mountain View from further consideration. Los Altos Fire Department staff was
directed to meet with Palo Alto and Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, to
clarify any issues or questions remaining regarding each of the proposals from the remaining
two jurisdictions being considered. The Los Altos City Council and the Los Altos County
Fire Protection District expect to make a selection and begin negotiations with one
jurisdiction by the end of August.
Staff indicated to the Policy and Services Committee on May 14, 1996 that we would report
back to Council as opportunities present themselves for regional consolidations. This
response to the RFP is one such option.
This proposal presents a specific response to each issue raised in the RFP, and the cost of
each of those options. In addition, this proposal offers two options for contracting of
dispatching services to the City of Los Altos. One is for fire dispatching only. The other is
for combined police and fire dispatching services. This proposal addresses other capital
acquisition issues such as facilities, fleet, and utilities. It addresses insurance, liability, and
labor costs. Those issues can be addressed further in negotiations should the City of Palo
Alto be selected to proceed into further negotiations.
Because fire services are so vital, yet expensive to provide, many cities, counties, and fire
districts throughout the State are trying to find ways to provide more efficient and effective
fire services through regional cooperation or consolidation. Streamlining administrative
costs through contracting or consolidation of services is essential to the maintenance of high
service levels. This proposal would result in an overall reduction in the number of positions
currently held by both departments as follows:
CMR:327:96 Page 2 of 5
One fire chief, one battalion chief, six firefighters, one clerical, and two dispatchers (if police
dispatching option chosen) would be reduced by attrition. In addition, two pieces of fire
apparatus would be eliminated from the combined fleet.
Several specific questions were addressed in response to the City of Los Altos Request for
Proposal relating to service levels. Although the minimum requirements are addressed in
Article III of the response, it should be noted that the proposal reflects the following:
Provision of a level of service to Los Altos and the Los Altos County Fire Protection
District similar to that currently provided for Palo Alto, Stanford University, and
SLAC.
Cost estimates for providing the services conservatively based on projected increases
for FY 96/97, although the City is currently in negotiations with IAFF Local 1319.
The base level fee includes all positions budgeted at E-step, although employees will
be brought in step to step. The City will provide end of year actual expenses and
make adjustments to billed charges accordingly.
A dedicated 40 hour Battalion Chief responding from Los Altos and serving as a
liaison between Palo Alto, Los Altos, and the Los Altos County Fire Protection
District. In addition, during week days seven additional chief officers would be
available to respond to greater alarms, or provide back-up (all from within 3.5 miles
of Los Altos). During evenings and weekends, a 24 hour Battalion Chief from Palo
Alto Station 6 will respond.
Paramedic service delivery options that can be readily implemented to improve the
level of service at minimal costs at desired locations, with opportunities for future
enhancements.
Superior, experienced, and well equipped wildland urban interface response
capability.
Nearly double the personnel and equipment on a first alarm assignments than is
currently provided currently by the Los Altos Fire Department. The depth provided
by the increased staffing availability is especially effective due to the proximity of all
eight Palo Alto fire stations to Los Altos and the Los Altos County Fire Protection
District.
Impacts on Services and Costs
The ~esponse to the Request for Proposal demonstrates that a contractual form of joint
service delivery is economically and operationally beneficial and should result in improved
service at a lesser or similar cost, depending on the option selected. The following options
and estimated associated costs are described in the proposal:
CMR:327:96 Page 3 of 5 "
Base Level Service - Staffing levels as requested in RFP requirements, includes fire
dispatching only.
$3,376,849 annually (96/97 FY)
Joint Staffing of Station 8- (Fire Season Only)
$45,600 annually (96/97 FY)
Paramedic Service - Paramedic Assessment Engines (One Paramedic - non-transport)
$40,850 per unit annually (96/97 FY)
$35,000 one time start-up cost per unit
Paramedic Service - Paramedic Transport Engines
(Two Paramedics - transport under certain conditions)
$72,000 annually per unit (96/97 FY)
$50,000 one time start-up cost per unit (not including cost of engine - to be done at
time of replacement of engine)
Paramedic Service - Ambulance (Two paramedics - transport)
Further analysis of transport volume and collection rate required.
Dispatching of fire services only. (Included in Base Level Service - above)
$167,000 annually (96/97 FY)
$45,500 first year only additional capital costs
Dispatching of fire and police
$280,400 annually (96/97 FY)
$19,500 first year only additional capital costs
Fleet replacement schedules
Option 1 - $0 (Fleet retained by Los Altos/Los Altos County Fire Protection District)
Option 2 - $112,729 annually (Los Altos replaces 2 engines before the contract
begins)
Option 3 - $139,194 annually (Palo Alto Vehicle Replacement Fund replaces 2
engines and is repaid over 10 years)
Option 4 - $176,487 annually (Palo Alto Vehicle Replacement Fund replaces 2
engines and is repaid over 5 years)
Option 5 - $112,729 annually (Palo Alto Vehicle Replacement Fund replaces 2
engines and then returns two similar type and age)
CMR:327:96 Page 4 of 5
Fire Station buildings and facilities to be owned and maintained by Los Altos and the
Los Altos Hills Fire Protection District.
FISCAL IMPACT
Although the final fiscal impact cannot be determined until a contract is developed which
addresses all issues left to be negotiated, including apportionment between the City of Los
Altos and the Los Altos County Fire Protection District, it is estimated that the proposal will
result in an estimated annual $300,000 in net revenue to the City of Palo Alto. Depending
on the option chosen by the City of Los Altos, the proposal will also result in approximately
$300,000 savings, as apportioned, to the City of Los Altos and the Los Altos County Fire
Protectibn District.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This project is exempt from CEQA under section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Letter of Endorsement
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Proposal to Provide Fire Protection Services to the City of Los Altos
and the Los Altos County Fire Protection District. (A full copy of this
report can be reviewed in the Fire Administration Office, 250 Hamilton
Avenue, 6th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301)
CMR 257:96 - Report to Policy and Services Committee regarding the
final report from Ralph Andersen and Associates Re: The North County
Fire Services Consolidation Study (See Council Packet Item #2 for
report)
PREPARED BY: Ruben Grijalva, Fire Chief
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
Fire
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL
JUNE FLEMING
City Manager
CMR:327:96 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
July 1, 1996
Robert Webster, Fire Chief
City of Los Altos Fire Dep.artment
10 Almond Avenue
Los Altos, California
SUBJECT: Letter of Endorsement
Dear Chief Webster:
At its meeting on, July 1, 1996, the Palo Alto City Council authorized the Mayor to make the
endorsements listed below. Generally, the Fire Department will exceed the minimum staffing and
equipment levels as requested in the Request for Proposal; the City is prepared to meet the standards
of the RFP.
The final commitment of resources will be determined through the negotiations process and
ultimately approved by the respective governing bodies.
Part III, A. 1. El Monte Station. The City Council endorses the plan to staff three or more people
and one or more piece of firefighting equipment at the station.
Part III, A. 2. Loyola Station. The City Council endorses the plan to staffthree or more people and
one or more piece of fire fighting equipment at the station.
Part III, A. 3. Sequoia Station. The City Council endorses the plan to staff three or more people
and one or more piece of firefighting equipment at the station.
Part III, B. 1. A. Staffing to a structure fire. The City Council endorses the number of personnel
and equipment responding to a structure fire of unknown consequence as indicated in the City of
Palo Alto’s proposal.
Part III, B. 1. b. Minimum staffing to a vehicle fire. The City Council endorses the number of
personnel and equipment responding to a vehicle fire as indicated in the City ofPalo Alto’s proposal.
Part III, B. 1. c. Minimum staffing to a grass fire. The City Council endorses the number of
personnel and equipment responding to a grass fire as indicated in the City of Palo Alto’s proposal.
Part III, B. 2. Minimum staffing to a hazardous materials incident. The City Council endorses
the number of personnel and equipment responding to a hazardous materials,incident as indicated
in the City ofPalo Alto’s proposal.
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
415.329.2184
415.327. 6951
Part HI, B. 3. a. Minimum staffmg to a medical emergency incident. The City Council endorses
the number of personnel and equipment responding to an emergency medical incident as indicated
in the City ofPalo Alto’s proposal.
Part III, B. 3. b. Paramedic service. The City Council endorses the response pertaining the
paramedic service as indicated in the City ofPalo Alto’s proposal.
Part III, B. 4. a. Minimum staffing to a collapsed building. The City Council endorses the
number of personnel and equipment responding to a collapsed building incident as indicated in the
City of Palo Alto’s proposal
Part IH, B. 4. b. Minimum staffing to a vehicle accident. The City Council endorses the number
of personnel and equipment responding to a vehicle accident incident as indicated in the City of Palo
Alto’s proposal.
Part III, B. 5. a. Minimum staffing to a smoke investigation. The City Council endorses the
number of personnel and equipment responding to a smoke/gas investigation incident as indicated
in the City ofPalo Alto’s proposal.
Part HI, B. 5. b. Minimum staffing to a vehicle lockout incident. The City Council endorses the
number of personnel and equipment responding to a vehicle lockout incident as indicated in the City
ofPalo Alto’s proposal.
Part III, B. 5. c. Minimum staffing to a flooding incident. The City Council endorses the number
of personnel and equipment responding to a flooding incident as indicated in the City ofPalo Alto’s
proposal.
Part III, B. 5. d. Minimum staffing to a wires down incident. The City Council endorses the
number of personnel and equipment responding to a wires down incident as indicated in the City of
Palo Alto’s proposal.
Part III, C. a. Minimum staffing to a simultaneous call within Los Altos City/District. The
City Council endorses the number of personnel and equipment responding to a simultaneous call
within Los Altos City/District incident as indicated in City of Palo Alto’s proposal.
Part III, C. b. Residual staffing during a simultaneous call within Los Altos City/District. The
City Council endorses the residual staffing within the City of Palo Alto during a simultaneous call
within Los Altos City/District as indicated in the City ofPalo Alto’s proposal.
Part III, F. 1. Term of contract. The City Council endorses the term of the contract as indicated
in the City of Palo Alto’s proposal.
Part III, F. 2. Administrative overhead charges. The City Council endorses the explanation of
administrative overhead charges as indicated in the City of Palo Alto’s proposal.
Part III, F. 3. Contract cost adjustments. The City Council endorses the determination of contract
cost adjustments as indicated in the City ofPalo Alto’s proposal.
Part III, I. 7. Workers compensation. The City Council endorses the determination of liability
and settlement of workers compensation claims as indicated in the City of Palo Alto’s proposal.
Part III, J. 1. Emergency operations center. The City Council endorses the staffing plan as
indicated in the City ofPalo Alto’s proposal.
Endorsed by:
Lanie-Wheeler, Mayor
City of Palo Alto
Date