HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1981/07/14 Item 12v
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~ 2
Meeting Date 7/14/81
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /Q~.~~Approving Second Amendment to Agreement
Between the City of Chula Vista and Montgomery Fire
District for Fire Dispatching Services Modifying
Resolution No. 10354
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Safety~,J~,~j (4/5ths Vote: Yes NoX )
At the Council meeting of December 16, 1980 the Council passed Resolution
No. 10354 thereby amending the original dispatching agreement by establish-
ing a new annual charge, with the provision that this payment would be
reviewed at the end of the 1980-81 fiscal year.
Recommendation: That Council:
1. Adopt Resolution approving second amendment to agreement to
provide for increased payment.
Board/Commission Recommendation: Not Applicable
Discussion:
In the past we have discussed the possibility of determining a
dispatching fee formula that would be based on each "using" jurisdiction
paying their proportionate share of the costs paid to operate the fire
dispatching position. It is difficult to determine the basic use factor
for such an agreement. We have talked about number of calls, population,
assessed valuations, number of fire stations or a combination of all
these factors. I feel that the best measure is the number of calls
because calls or requests for service are the basic work unit for the
fire dispatch function.
However, even the "calls for service" measurement has inequities. I base
this on the fact that National City has a policy which results in their
responding to a greater number of medical calls than the other fire
departments. They are in the process of revising this policy and because
of this we will probably see a decrease in their calls in the future. If
we based our 1981-82 charges on calls for service National City would
experience a very significant increase in dispatching fees to the point
where we might force them to seek fire dispatching services with
San Diego Fire Department. You will recall that we assumed dispatching
for both Montgomery and Bonita without adding Communications Operators
but when we took over dispatching for National City we hired an additional
Operator and they are paying the salary and fringes of that Operator.
We currently are in the last year of an agreement with the Bonita-
Sunnyside Fire District which requires us to provide their dispatching
services without any specific determination of the dollar value of these
services. Finally, I anticipate that we will be able to come to an
agreement with Imperial Beach to provide their fire dispatching
services by the 198?.-83 fiscal year. We will be able to do this without
adding to our costs. This means that we will be able to spread the costs
over five departments and I believe the "calls for service" formula
will be more acceptable to all departments at that time. I must also
Form A-113 (Rev. 11./79)
Page 2
Item #~
Mtg. Date 7/14/81
point out that there are positive benefits for Chula Vista in
providing this central fire dispatching which results in a
more coordinated fire service in the South Bay with a high
level of cooperation and sharing between departments. Another
advantage is that a good portion of the fire dispatch position
time is spent on police dispatch service thereby giving us
better service during the times when the police work load is
the heaviest.
It is m_y recommendation that we increase the Montgomery Fire
District dispatching fees by loo for the 1981-82 fiscal year.
This is based on the salary and fringe benefit increase received
by the Communications Operators. This would increase the annual
fee from $12, 500 to $13, 750. Informal approval of the Fire District
Board has been indicated.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
~-/~~5~
__ '~~
,. ~... .
WJW/ams