CC 2019-02-26_10a Supplemental No. 2_R
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JAMES A. BERGMAN, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
AGENDA ITEM 10.a. – FEBRUARY 26, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PROVIDE DIRECTION RELATED TO FIRE SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2019
Attached is correspondence received regarding the above referenced item.
cc: City Attorney
City Clerk
FCFA Fire Chief
Public Review Binder
From: AMANDA HUBBLE < >
Date: February 25, 2019 at 10:49:50 PM PST
To: <kstorton@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: Five Cities Fire Authority
I’d like to offer my thoughts in regards to the discussion about the future of Five
Cities Fire Authority.
I am the wife of one of the men protecting these three communities. I am
extremely disheartened and angry that this is even a discussion. He has already
taken it upon himself to perform an extremely dangerous job so that he can make
a difference in the lives of the people in these communities... a job that not many
can and would do. To think that it is being considered an option to reduce staffing
in an already under staffed and under funded fire authority is beyond my
comprehension. Myself and our small children should not be sending Dad off to
work in an even more dangerous situation than he’s already in. I can’t imagine
making a conscious decision to put several lives at risk by doing so. They are not
asking for much... they are simply asking for the appropriate tools and resources
to do their jobs safely and effectively.
Furthermore, as a local realtor serving these areas for several years, I have seen
first hand the amount of people coming to live in this area, as well as all of the
new construction. We have not done a good job of putting policies and plans in
place to keep up with the growing needs of the community. It’s time we make
Fire and Safety a priority for the increasing number of citizens we are opening our
doors to.
I urge you to consider the options presented to you by the Five Cities Fire
Authority to protect and serve our communities, keeping them, you, and and our
firefighters safe.
Mandy McMahon
1
From: Sarah LoPresti
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 7:03 AM
To: Kristen Barneich; Lan George; Keith Storton; Jimmy Paulding; Caren Ray Russom
Subject: Staff Report Agenda Item 10.a
Dear Arroyo Grande City Council Members,
I wanted to send an email in regards to the staff report, agenda item 10.a for today's meeting. My name is Sarah
LoPresti and my husband, Michael LoPresti, is a Fire Engineer with the Five Cities Fire Authority. In my
understanding, the City Manager is recommending to the City Council the dissolution of FCFA by the end of
this year. I was very disappointed and upset to hear this news. My husband has been working for FCFA since
2012. It has always been his dream to serve in his community in this capacity. Firefighters take their
profession very seriously and have a lot of pride in what they do regardless of what patch is on their shoulder.
With the dissolution of FCFA, many things would change for the employees of the fire department, as well as
for the members of this community.
A decrease in staffing is dangerous to both citizens and visitors of Arroyo Grande, as well as our beloved
Firefighters that already risk their safety on a daily basis. Current staffing is not ideal, nor is it sufficient, which
is why in 2017 a five year strategic plan was adopted. However, due to a lack of planning, the City Council now
has to debate on whether they want to revert back and lower the level of service to its citizens. With less
staffing, response times will increase and the possibility of injury increases. Arroyo Grande will be failing to
protect our community and the firefighters if this proposal goes through. In 2015, calls of service in Arroyo
Grande totaled 1,724. In 2016, that number increased to 1,824. In 2017, the calls increased another 8.9% to
1,987 calls. This city is becoming more and more populated, which is why the Fire authority budget and staffing
need have increased as well. However, funding, staffing, and decisions regarding FCFA have not supported the
FCFA in keeping up with the high volume of calls while maintaining a safe environment for employees. The
proposal to go to a single city department is problematic because in 2017 there were 206 calls made in Arroyo
Grande at the same time. That means 10.4% of the time, one engine in Arroyo Grande would not be able to go
to an emergency call within the city of Arroyo Grande.
The FCFA was created with the intention of serving the growing needs of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and
Oceano in a cost effective and efficient manner. The department has done this, but only to the best of their
ability with the budget and tools that they have. In my opinion, they have become a stronger team and
department, which makes me feel protected and safe as a community member. I do not think it is in the best
interest of the fire department or the City of Arroyo Grande to dissolve FCFA. Single City Fire Departments are
possible, but it seems like most communities have moved to a fire authority and or District model because of the
financial benefits and level of service provided.
Thank you for your time and I hope much discussion goes into this decision.
Sincerely,
Sarah LoPresti
1
From: Stephanie Hughey
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 9:01 AM
To: Caren Ray Russom
Subject: Five Cities Fire Authority
Dear Mayor Russom
I would like to take this time and introduce myself. My name is Stephanie Hughey, wife of Fire Captain Tom Hughey. It
is well known the ongoing issues that face the future of the Five Cities Fire Authority. I like many other wives have been
on this roller coaster of up and downs when it comes to supporting our husbands selfless and blind loyalty of the Fire
Authority.
I write this letter having a different perspective of the delivery system, and what it takes as a team to get the job
done. I have worked in Emergency Medical Services as a Paramedic and Flight Nurse in and around our community for a
combined 26 years. I currently serve my community as a Nursing House Supervisor at a local hospital and Im grateful
that I get to interact daily with the people that make up this wonderful area.
In my observations both prehospital and in the hospital, I have seen first hand the professionalism that your
firefighters exhibit on a daily basis. You as council should be extremely proud of what they do with this limited staffing. I
know many agencies that have many people to handle all of the intricacies that your fire personnel handle without the
luxury of appropriate staffing. With that being said, working below the National standard of staffing, we have been
incredibly lucky, and I hate to use that word, thinking I send my husband out the door in the mornings feeling truly
“lucky” that he comes home. We as a department have not sustained a seriously catastrophic or deadly injury thus far
and I am really bothered by the fact that I have to place that feeling on “luck”.
Our fire personnel have worked and continue to work well below the safe standards. I am well aware of the inherent
risk of the nature of the job alone and I know exactly what I signed up for. However, given the current circumstances the
risk is more “in my face” every day that he leaves for work. I am gravely concerned for all of our fire families as the
issues of staffing continue to go down a path of “less is more”. And at the end of the day, it really is up to you to do the
right thing.
We absolutely cannot continue down this path and the need to protect our fire fighters who ultimately are protecting
all of the citizens, including your loved ones in this community, is greater now than ever. This community is only going to
continue to grow as you have allowed that to be. Please, I implore you to take a hard look at the future and the
consideration of what lies before you. What’s at stake is the safety of our community, your loved ones, my husband, my
children’s father and all of the other fire families that I call family where the bond we share as a family, is thicker than
blood.
Respectfully,
Stephanie Hughey, RN
1
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: James Guthrie
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 4:21 PM
To: Jim Bergman <jbergman@arroyogrande.org>; Kelly Wetmore <kwetmore@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: FCFA
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
Unfortunately, I will not be able to make it to tonight's meeting.
Here are my thoughts on the FCFA item you are considering tonight. I apologize for the last minute email.
1 A little history
Combined services for the 5 cities area has long been a topic of discussion but the first version of the 5CHA was simply
to share AG's Fire Chief and have GB supply a training officer. No financial savings just better and coordinated training.
The next step was to redesign the service area changing the dividing line from essentially Oak Park to I believe Elm street
but It may have been Courtland. Again no saving to either city, just better service. I will add that at the time everyone
thought this was great service.
Next, we actually formed the authority and at the last minute (in government time) we added Oceano to the authority.
Once again no financial saving to the agencies. Grover Beach always knew that it would be more expensive and the small
saving anticipated for AG was wiped out by the increase in pay necessary to equalize the wages between the agencies. I
think it was fair to say that the thinking was long term savings to the city would come when the Authority evolved into a
district and had its own funding stream. There was an attempt to move in that direction with an attempt at a parcel tax
to cover the cost of the additional personnel that were added under a Safer Grant. That failed and with it probably any
likelihood the authority would evolve into a stand‐alone district.
The authority continued to operate fairly smoothly until the unresolved funding source for equipment came to a head a
couple of years ago. Followed shortly by the need for additional management personnel (one qualified Battalion Chief
on call 24/7 ‐ 365ish ) and then followed almost immediately by the collapse of the volunteer fireman program
throughout California.
2
I don't have a confident answer about the optimal level of Fire Service for AG. The data used to develop the reasoning is
based on 1987 service calls in AG a year, that's 5.5 per 24 hour period, a small variation in interpretation or operations
could result in a different conclusion. Those of you who were on the council for the last review will remember that the
conclusions of the AG city manager based on that data had to be set aside at the last second, by a reiteration of the data
by the fire authority. There also may be operational changes that could affect the need for more than 2 crews ( in an AG‐
GB agency ). We have been told that at times a second truck was sent to assist because one of the crews has just 2
members. Additionally, we don't roll 2 full fire trucks because it might be a 2 alarm fire, why do we roll a fire truck to a
trip and fall if there is an ambulance available?
Beyond that adequate safety is inherently a subjective decision and is often, if not always more a function of what we
can afford than what we want.
3 Bottom line
I have always thought that given AG's demographics and budget we were under "fired" and adequately to slightly over
policed, but I have also learned that if you don't lean back when facing a funding crisis you will get pancaked by the next
one.
2
All of the review to date has been about financial equity and sustainability but the "governance " of the Authority
deserves an equal review. We can't afford the "luxury" of an agency (and fire chief )directly serving 3 political and
financial entities. A fire chief 1 city manager and 1 council would provide all of the financial advantages, with greater
nimbleness and efficiency. I know contracting (by either AG or GB) requires someone to give up some control but how
much control do you think we have now. We gave up "control" of our police dispatch and not only did we save some
money I believe the additional coverage and technology were an improvement as well. I hope you will at least put a
contract service option on the table for consideration.
Everything needs a deadline and I am happy to see this coming to a head.
If you're confident going in one direction or another, by all means, light the fuse. If I had to make a decision tonight it
would be the 2 agency approach with 2 stations. AG's population has only grown by 5% over the last 8 years but our
expectations have grown as well, so a single agency would be a big step backward. For years AG has been the lead city
on these kinds of efforts usually requiring a higher financial commitment. I don't believe we can afford to continue. The
county can and should step up and face the new reality for fire service and not hide behind the CSD designation and
provide Oceano the funding they need.
One of the mistakes we made was moving forward too fast with the addition of Oceano when we formed the agency.
Our expectation that something else would replace it down the line and amount of mutual/emergency aid we were
providing blinded us to the long run problems that we are experiencing today.
I don't think we have enough information to make a final decision. We don't really know what a 2 city service would look
like, whether Oceano can find additional revenue and we could know more about how other citie's organize their
services. I would like to see you provide the other agencies as much direction as you can but re‐set the deadline far
enough into the future that Oceano vote on a parcel tax. I think this is a vote by mail so it could be as little as 90 days
and if you are generous, give the County a couple of months to work out whatever their response is.
Again sorry for the last minute input.
Thanks for your time and service to our community Jim Guthrie