A Tuesday of Intrigue

Tazer Faithful, keep your wigs screwed on tight! Tonight's the night for yet another edition of "As the City Council Meets." The agenda can be found HERE.

In closed session, Item #1 reads as "Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation" and cites Subdivision [a] of "Government Code Section 54956.9" as well as "East Bay Regional Park District vs. Upstream Point Molate, LLC".

Some quick law: "GCS 94956.9" is about holding a closed session meeting with legal counsel when open session might prejudice a "local agency" in the midst of litigation; "Subdivision [a]" is concerned with definitions of what construes "pending litigation," specifically that "litigation...has been initiated formally."

For the interested, "EBRPD (and Citizens for East Shore Parks) vs. UPM LLC" is a lawsuit that sought an enivronmental review of a possible Vegas-style resort casino at Pt. Molate.

And some quick history: In 2003, the US Navy transferred Pt. Molate to the City of Richmond. In 2004, the Richmond city council voted to sell Pt. Molate to UPM. UPM is based in Emeryville and headed by James D. Levine, a Berkeley developer. UPM was working with Harrah's and the Guidiville Pomos.

The Tazer wonders: Is there money in it?

Item #2 reads as "Conference with Labor Negotiators" and cites "Government Code Section 54957.6". Cited unions: IAFF (International Association of Fire Fighters), SEIU (Service Employees International Union), RFMA (Restaurant Facility Management Association), and RPOA (Richmond Police Officers' Association). By the way, "GCS 54957.6" finds itself concerning closed sessions for the negotiation of salaries, compensation, benefits, etc.

The Tazer wonders: Is there money in it?

And finally, the Tazer notes that the following words fail to appear in the agenda: "crematorium," "pollution," "violence," "prevention".

The Tazer wonders: Is there money in it?

On the "plus" side of the ledger is Item K-2: "Status Report on start-up of Automatic Aid with Contra Costa County for fire services". Today's Times offers up this apparent answer...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FIRE DEPARTMENTS AGREE ON SYSTEM

RICHMOND: Emergencies will now be handled by closest station, regardless of city or county boundaries

By John Geluardi
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

The Richmond and county fire departments have reached a temporary agreement that will allow thousands of West Contra Costa County residents to rest a bit easier.

The Richmond Fire Department announced Monday the reinstatement of an automatic aid agreement with the Contra Costa Fire District starting at 7:30 a.m. today.

That means residents on either side of Richmond's boundary with San Pablo, El Sobrante and North Richmond are now assured that the fire station closest to their homes will automatically respond to medical emergencies and fires, regardless of city and county boundaries.

"This is the best thing for everybody concerned," Richmond Fire Chief Michael Banks said Monday. "We met with the county to work out some final details, and now we're ready to roll."

Depending on the jurisdiction of the emergency, firefighters and equipment will be dispatched from the Contra Costa County Fire District dispatch center or the Richmond police dispatch center, according to the agreement.

While the two fire agencies are still working out radio communication issues, the agreement is the beginning of a reconciliation between the departments, which have been at odds for years, said Contra Costa County Fire Chief Keith Richter.

"I'm encouraged that we're at least starting a system that will get us back into a cooperative mode," he said. "We both left the room with an agreement to provide the best service we possibly can."

The temporary agreement is a stopgap measure pending a permanent pact.

In 2002, the Richmond City Council broke off a previous automatic aid agreement with the intention of restarting it as soon as the two departments worked out disagreements over money, communications systems and turf.

But the issue lingered for four years until June 2, when three children died in a Richmond house fire. While the Richmond Fire Department responded quickly to the scene, critical backup firefighters and equipment would have arrived two to three minutes sooner had an automatic aid agreement been in place.

Richmond officials and fire department administrators have said that a faster response by backup firefighters would not have saved the children's lives.

But those reassurances were little comfort to residents along Richmond's boundary with San Pablo, El Sobrante and North Richmond, who were not automatically protected by the fire stations that were within blocks of their homes, and in once case, right across the street.

Barbara Pendergrass, chairwoman of the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Committee, said the agreement was good news.

"This is fantastic," she said. "We've been so concerned about the fact that the station closest was not automatically responding to fires. I think it was putting a lot of people at risk."

City and county elected officials expressed a mixture of relief that the agreement is finally in place and frustration that it took so long.

The lack of an agreement was beginning to hurt Richmond's image, said Richmond Mayor Irma Anderson. "I commend both our county and city chiefs for working so diligently on this," she said. "I knew the agreement was imminent, but there was this unfair perception that Richmond wasn't serious about reinstating it."

Reach John Geluardi at 510-262-2787 or jgeluardi@cctimes.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A TAZER SIDENOTE: Damn hurting Richmond's "image," Irma! What about hurting Richmond's PEOPLE!? Effective public safety ought to be a paramount concern! Keep enough people alive and we can work on the rest!

Here's to hoping that a permanent agreement is reached soon, by the way.

And as is usual, the possibility of comic tragedy/tragic comedy lies once again at the bottom of Page 2 of the agenda: "The City Council’s adopted Rules of Procedure recognize that debate on policy is healthy; debate on personalities is not. The Chairperson has the right and obligation to cut off discussion that is too personal, too loud, or too crude. (emphasis, the Tazer's)"