Sonoma County’s study of fire services draws ire

An overarching study by Sonoma County administrators aimed at carving out the future of fire services countywide is coming up against increasing concerns and frustrations lodged by numerous high-ranking fire officials.

Skeptical of the study from the start, the fire chiefs say that while they hope for success, they fear the county has set up an unwieldy process that risks the strong chance this effort could become yet another expansive county analysis leading to little or no change.

“I want to give the county and the process time to work but I’m skeptical,” said Ernie Loveless, chairman of the Schell-Vista Fire Protection District board and the board of directors for the Sonoma County fire district association. “It appears to me they’re gathering lots of data and stats that aren’t going to measure up to a whole lot in the overall picture.”

A leading concern is the size of the study’s advisory committee, organized by the county for all comers as officials said they wanted to err on the side of inclusion.

It now stands at 70 to 80 members, made up mostly of officials from across the county’s fire services network. The group, which meets monthly, is expected to reach consensus by fall on decisions that could dramatically reshape the fire-protection network for at least some of the county’s 41 fire agencies. Those recommendations then will go to the Board of Supervisors, and if necessary, to LAFCO, the state agency that oversees public agency boundary and formation issues.

But the likelihood of a uniform direction for meaningful change is far-fetched, several chiefs said.

“If they’re going to figure it out, they have to get it away from a group of 70,” Gold Ridge Fire Chief Dan George said. “A room full of six of us could hammer this out with good recommendations.”

County officials say the effort to sort out a future vision for fire protection represents their best attempt to deal with a host of chronic issues affecting fire agencies, including funding and volunteer shortages, the rising cost of equipment and training, and possibilities for greater efficiency among neighboring departments.

The estimated two-year-plus undertaking, now in its fifth month, has been bumpy, acknowledged Chris Thomas, the assistant county administrator who is supervising the study. “A lot of people are trying to get their head around what this project is,” Thomas said. “It’s clear, based on the level of feedback I’m getting, that the message isn’t being heard.”

At the root of the complex issue are what services are needed and how to deliver and pay for them. While all chiefs talk about the need to deliver the highest level of service possible to the public, their views clash on how that is best done.

Some district fire chiefs have been clamoring for a chance to discuss greater consolidation of agencies. Others, including many volunteer company chiefs, prefer to keep things closer to how they are now but with more financial support from the county. Some volunteer companies and district agencies fear getting swept into a neighboring agency and the subsequent loss of autonomy, not to mention the longstanding community identity often symbolized by the local fire company.

This study is the latest of several county-driven examinations, stretching back to 1983, that have looked at ways to better organize the patchwork of agencies, which currently includes 21 independent districts, five city departments and 15 volunteer companies.

With a total budget of $82 million for fire services, the agencies last year responded to 55,000 calls from the county’s population of 495,000, according to county statistics gathered in the new study.

An initial part of the effort involved a series of community meetings coupled with the request for reams of data from all agencies - ranging from the age and training levels of all volunteers to equipment inventories, response times and types of calls.

County officials say this effort will build on prior assessments by getting a full picture through the extensive data collection as well as input from so many stakeholders.

“It’s an opportunity to look at service levels and what we need to do to either enhance or maintain them. It’s part of a long-term strategy to address systemic problems and challenges,” said Supervisor Efren Carrillo, who along with then-Supervisor Mike McGuire helped launch the study. “Not every fire agency is facing a financial crisis. This will show us where the issues are.”

The study also stemmed at least in part from the inevitable change coming to local fire services with or without the county’s input.

Fire agencies in three areas have been taking steps to improve their fiscal situations through consolidation, independence or annexation of new area - and its accompanying property tax revenue. Those changes could greatly affect the tax revenue the county uses to fund the volunteer companies.

The county funds fire protection in rural pockets covered by the volunteer companies strictly through property tax dedicated almost exclusively to fire services. Aside from some infrequent one-time expenditures, it allocates no general fund money for fire services.

Some fire officials for years have complained the arrangement leaves the companies woefully underfunded and heavily reliant on neighboring districts and city fire agencies for coverage. Other complaints have come from agencies or regions of the county, including The Sea Ranch, that give more to the shared pot for volunteer companies than they get back - essentially subsidizing fire services in other areas.

Spearheading much of the county’s current action have been north county agencies, with talks of consolidating or sharing resources among district, city and volunteer agencies in the region, covering almost one-third of Sonoma County. The area includes the tax-rich Geysers geothermal fields, one of the most significant revenue sources for supporting volunteer fire companies countywide.

While county officials would prefer the north county officials, as well as those representing The Sea Ranch and Schell-Vista, where annexation plans are underway, to hold off on their separate efforts while the new study is in progress, only Schell-Vista’s board of directors has decided to wait.

Needing to get out ahead of the piecemeal changes, the Board of Supervisors last year set the countywide services question as a priority and launched the study.

Signs of growing frustration in the county’s efforts by fire officials include an upcoming move by the Sonoma County Fire District Association to request reimbursement funds from the Board of Supervisors for certain fire-related costs for all 41 county agencies.

Schell-Vista’s board chairman, Loveless, said the board had agreed to make the request but he declined to say how much money they would seek or for what costs, saying plans weren’t yet finalized. As well as hoping for financial aid, the request has another point, he said.

“It’s an underlying attempt to tell the county we don’t have much hope in their study. If we thought where the county was heading, that there was going to be some magic formula at the end and all of us were going to be OK, we would back off and not pursue any changes,” said Loveless, a longtime ranking Cal Fire official before his retirement several years ago. “That’s not the sentiment” among the department chiefs and board members.

Further signs of breakdown are emerging in the process. They include splinter groups of fire officials who have approached county officials outside of the study.

On the sidelines, a group of district fire chiefs is meeting with Thomas, recommending he pare down the countywide vision to something they think is more manageable. Chief George, of Gold Ridge, said they are suggesting that instead of looking at the county as a whole, the study could focus on the regional fire zones already established and fire agencies within those zones could consider improvements among themselves.

“We want to reset this thing and look at getting into small groups,” George said.

Meanwhile volunteer chiefs plan to meet with County Administrator Veronica Ferguson to discuss the study. Their suspicion has been raised by uncertainty about the county’s long-term aims.

“We don’t know if the county wants to get out of the fire business or into it. We want to ask questions. ‘Do you want in or out?’” said Mayacamas volunteer Chief Will Horne, who is chairman of the volunteer chiefs association.

Thomas said some of the confusion and frustration erupted because the county purposefully didn’t set a clear set of goals or recommendations, leaving that to the advisory committee. He said in future committee meetings he plans to direct the data gathering and focus on finances to get to the crux of the issue.

He has stressed that whatever the final direction, the aim of the process includes that current services cannot be reduced and no agency can be forced to change. “We’re not going to shove anything down anybody’s throat,” Thomas said at a community meeting last fall in Kenwood.

Valley Ford volunteer Fire Chief Matt Epstein said he’s hopeful the study will result in a new vision for the county. “I think what the county is trying to do is great. It’ll take time and a lot of people showing each other respect and working together.”

Bodega Bay Fire Chief Sean Grinnell expressed cautious optimism that this effort may be the one that takes.

“We’ve come so far since the 1983 study,” Grinnell said. “Individual agencies are using boundaries only to define tax boundaries not defining fire departments. We’re getting closer and closer together.”

Staff Writer Angela Hart contributed to this report. You can reach Staff Writer Randi Rossmann at 521-5412 or randi.rossmann@pressdemocrat.com or on Twitter@rossmannreport.