The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFY 2011-2012 Year-End Report and FY 2012-2013 Mid-Year Repor 5/6/2013 ; CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH iiii�i^�i� ii iur A�u r �"P�9V91111 I li�i i�.� FY 2011/12 Year-End and FY 2012/13 Mid-Year Report ., �17 � � 4w Y Summary ❑ FY 2011/12 Audit and Year-End Results ❑ FY 2012/13 Mid-Year Update ❑ Marine Safety Operations Study Results ❑ Table of Organization Proposed Changes SUPPLEMENTAL - COMMUNICATION meeting Date; Agenda item No. 5/6/2013 FY 2011/12 Audit and Year-End Results May FY 2011/12 Audit Results • Auditing firm of Macias, Gini & O'Connell audited the City's financial performance and reports • FY 2011/12 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) received an Unqualified (Clean)Audit Opinion • The City's CAFR is award winning— has received the Government Finance Officers Association's (GFOA) Excellence in Financial Reporting Award for 26 years 2 5/6/2013 FY 2011/12 Performance (Audited) Government-Wide Highlights 13 Total Government-Wide Assets of $1.0 billion 13 Total Government-Wide Liabilities of$113.3 million 0 Total Government-Wide Net Assets of$93 5.3 million • ($746.5 million relates to Capital assets alone) • ($72.0 million relates to Restricted assets and funds) 13 Reflects an increase of$51.2 million in net assets 0 Primarily due to transfer of Redevelopment Agency's long-term liabilities to a Private Purpose Trust Fund(Fiduciary Fund) General Fund Highlights 13 Year End Fund Balance of$54.4 million 13 Transfer of Land Held for Resale of$5.9 million to the Successor Agency 3 General Fund Balance FY 2011/12 Audited (In Thousands) N E'conot,riic'U-nc'e,r,,,,tai'nties� Equipment Replacement 6M3 j. -6,913 61913 Capital4Improvement.Reserve 4�,,270 1 S Obligation _4,649 4,701 4:.701 ,Budget*4z ation,F 'nd Y.460 Retiree:MedicaL Unfurided Liability 698 :Generai,P"affitenance,. Litigation Reserve 900 966 - .,400 U d 7 9j �84ft2�'_," n Bai�, Total Fund Balance 54,556 54,435 53,758 4 4 3 5/6/2013 x i FY 2012/13 Mid-Year Update Oil k FY 2012/13 General Fund Projection (As of March 31,2013) Estimated General Fund $18T l Estimated General Fund Revenue: $189.0 .t: *Estimated FY,2012113 General Fund Contingency* *This amount is only an estimate and is subject to change in the event of extenuating circumstances 5 4 5/6/2013 Potential Budget Pitfalls w; Zm ❑ RDA ®Potential challenges still exist that could significantly increase expenditures by year-end (i.e., adverse decisions by the State Department of Finance related to RDA) ❑ Ca1PERS (April 2013 and Upcoming Changes) ®Employer share continues to increase resulting from changes in contribution formula ® Changes go in effect FY 2015/16 6 Projected CalPERS Cost Increases Contribution Projections Contribution Projections Safety Miscellaneous ITlrect Rato Sn,r thing, ^_.to.�EIi� nt Rat, 7)irer[ILm Snnnxhiny,'..?G<�N.1-nr Rue aad\innerlilr Chun_v�a .md\Wriann Ch.—, hn Pact ol'lnrestnhnf Wlm en.ER Ra f$'Qliino,,r Rnarro a:n ER R.—ISNUMI-1 f i i 1 •INI.r annxunA r,11--ph—,c,zartr,!union on 1 ndd—nor rcfla RPW'. „"f11s1lar amnanRs r_deer cmP!o�-a�mrY+berinm rrnlY and Arts n,:i reda"I P,PMC. 7 5 5/6/2013 7-Year CalPERS Employer Contribution Increases .71171 3WHEMAK (in millions) 909% $50 0 +$3.6 $45 0 71r- S400 +S3.2 ku, $350 -- - - - -- ----------- 17:2i+ ------ ------- $300 I- S14,+S1.3 0.0% +52.2 L: $250 1 f $9.8 M04 -i Safety $200 Sg ------ +Arraunt Inc—se from Prwr Year $100 320-1----------- MM $5 0 FY 12113 FY 13114 FY 14115 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 Summary considers 30-Year Rolling to Fixed Amortization,Direct Rate Smoothing,Mortality Study and 7 25%Discount Rate Recommendations by Bartel Associates • Budget the full impact of the previous discount rate change (7.75% to 7.5%) in FY 20 13)/14 • Use extra one-time money to pay down unfunded liabilities • Options to fund higher future pension costs include: a Allocate/Find additional ongoing revenue to fully fund increasing future pension costs 13 Reduce current services a Negotiate to have employees pay more • Create a long-term financial plan that expedites full funding for increased CalPERS costs 9 6 5/6/2013 Preliminary Recommendations ❑ Option 1 n As recommended by Bartel Associates, deposit potential $1.9M year-end savings into Ca1PERS or other unfunded liabilities ■ Retiree Medical$10.6 M Unfunded Liability,48%funded ■ Supplemental Retirement$36.7 M Unfunded Liability,42.9%funded o Each$lM deposited into CalPERS, saves the City $5M C WA o Each$1 M deposited into Supplemental Plan will reduce the amortization period by six(6)years ❑ Option 2 - Deposit into Budget Stabilization Fund to help mitigate Ca1PERS impact ,a {'� Marine Safety Operations Study Results MEW 5/6/2013 'fable of Organization Proposed Changes Table of Organization Overview ❑ Historical Staffing Changes — Summary ❑ Department Tables of Organization a Proposed Updates —FY 2013/14 ■ Community Services ■Economic Development ■Police ■Public Works ■All Other Departments ,2 8 5/6/2013 2 Historical Staffing Changes ❑ Staffing reductions of 220 funded positions over past 5 years (20%overall workforce reduction) ❑ Includes 103 PARS participants ❑ Merging of Building and Safety with Planning ❑ Oversight of Community Services by Deputy City Manager (3 Years) ❑ Elimination of 2nd Deputy City Manager ❑ Elimination of Economic Development Director ❑ Modification of City Treasurer to Part-Time and consolidation of services with Finance ❑ Establishment of Chief Assistant City Attorney 13 Community Services & Economic Development ❑ Community Services ❑ Economic Development o Determination of oversight o Under the direction of City of Marine Safety Division Manager (separate presentation) o Status change to Division o Department Director and Re-title recruitment o Office of Business ■ Classification and Salary Development Review o Review of staffing deployment and assignment (no FTE reductions) 14 9 5/6/2013 Police & Public Works ❑ Police ❑ Public Works o Police Administrative o Reallocate two existing Services Manager vacant positions across o Community Services divisions Officer(City Council o Reorganize Facilities Strategic Plan Objective) Maintenance Operations Exchange existing position vacancy for alternate classification No impact on sworn recruitment No increase in department FTE or budget No increase in department FTE or budget 15 T= ; No Structural Department Changes The following departments will remain structurally intact;however, the ❑ Community Services opportunity to exchange an existing budgeted vacancy ❑ Finance for a comparable classification is likely. ❑ Fire This action will not result in ❑ Planming and Building any increase in FTEs or budget allocation. 16 10 5/6/2013 Status Quo Departments ❑ City Attorney ❑ City Clerk ❑ City Council The structure of the following departments will remain ❑ City Treasurer the same for FY 2013/14. ❑ Human Resources ❑ Information Services ❑ Library Services 17 . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i�Rli P _ "PO Questions? Questions? 11 5/6/2013 Organizational Options City of Huntington Beach Community Services Department Marine Safety Division Presented by John Goss, Senior Associate May 6, 2013 Ralph Andersen &Associates -Purpose * Evaluate Organizational Options for the Marine Safety Division 1 5/6/2013 Organizational Options • Stand-Alone Department . Beach Service Department . Merge with Police • Merge with Fire • Stay in Community Services Methodology . Document Review . Interviews . Survey of Other Cities/Counties 2 5/6/2013 Practices of Other California Beach Cities F,re CSJP&R Harbor Pot ce Stanc Alone C'a rtot� ✓ � Coronado I 1 Del Mar E,wmfl o ✓ NJIJ i,v,-C)N p?"dC;li !m enal Peach Lequna Ciea_h nn Haacn Les An eles City Los Ansel—Cowdy ✓ N"'por Brach Gce2na ck �— Pi�mo Eeach Fort-lue-- Sar Uenente Sar D eaa Seu Lun Cb,sw Port San L.,n Santa Barbara Sarta Cruz Seat Beach ✓ Solana beacr Totals i2 5 2 1 2 3 5/6/2013 Among 22 California Beach Cities: ® Fire : 12 . CS/P&R: 5 ® Harbor: 2 . Police : 1 . Stand-Alone: 2 arcvertaave Jur sdiction Attendance Rescues R•l ed i c a 4cs Actions Departmcnt Coronadc 3,55C,000 212 4E3 6,7�6 Fire Cel Mar 221e,969 382 995 5 415 CSfF&R Era;nit�s 34tC,422 1434 2951 7334 File ' HUNi%NC-ON BEA�0H 7,93e.526 3829 1349 117,795 GS/F&R Im?erial Reach 1 91H,100 324 14 JU4 Fire La_una Peach 4 315,450 2,446 d 316 123 759 Stand Alone Long 6eaeh 660C,000 3,201 4 775 184.-107 Fire Los Angeles City 1 42e'82 _41 -EC 18.352 _CS7t"&_ R Los An lesCount 615-2422 0352 15,'S6 939.366 Fue Oceansrcle 4,012,300 1039 2760 60,11Z Fue f\ewPcrt Bead 9.44e 350 3525 6,969 13'.336 File Seal Beach 2 CC,000 1,339 I,"82 5 235 staid Alone Kati Clemente 2 7:,6011 71 3 1 349 41'9AI C vp&R San Diego 21,7a659 5333 4,217 223,345 Fue 4 5/6/2013 Among 14 Most Active Southern California Beach Cities: ® Fire : 8 e CS/P&R: 4 e Stand-Alone : 2 1 O-Year Staffing Analysis De pt. Budget 2001102 2002103 2003104 2004105 Police 369 369 367 371 Fire 156 156 155 156 Community 63.25 6.3_25 6325 6 2.2'5 Service MRhne 5 14 14 14 Safety 5 5/6/2013 Options Pros and Cons Marine Safety Department 5/6/2013 Advantages . Marine Safety Department Head . Advocate for Department's Budget/Resources • Resource Requests Would Not Be Screened . Improved Morale for MSMA Employees Disadvantages • Cost • Against Trend to Flatten/Streamline City Organization • New Specialty Department Too Small • Negative Impact on Morale for MEA Employees • Practice of Other Cities to Merge Function with Fire or CS/P&R • Staffing Needs Not Likely Damaged by Being in CS/P&R 8 5/6/2013 Beach Services Department Advantages ® Marine Safety Department Head ® Advocate for Department's Budget/Resources ® Resource Requests Would Not Be Screened ® Improved Morale for MSMA Employees 9 5/6/2013 Disadvantages • Cost Splitting One Department into Two Departments • Merging Recreation and Library Would Not Be Successful Negative Impact on Morale for MEA Employees Trend is to Merge Function with Fire or CS/P&R Staffing Needs Not Likely Damaged by Being in CS/P&R Merge Marine Safety with Police 10 5/6/2013 Advantages • Department Head with Public Safety Background • Some Similarity in Rank Structure • Some Similarity in Patrol Operations • Less Oversight Compared to Fire • Perceived Protection in Allocation of Resources Disadvantages • Cost • Greater Similarity in Functions of Fire or CS/P&R • Greater Risk of Budget Reductions • Police Management Not Receptive to Providing Oversight • Better Oversight if Part of Fire or CS/P&R • Trend is to Merge Function with Fire or CS/P&R • Smaller CS Department Would Remain li 5/6/2013 Merge with Fire Advantages • Department Head with Public Safety Background • Marine Safety and Fire have Functions Most in Common • Better Oversight Over Marine Safety • Most Beach Cities Have Merged Marine Safety with Fire • Minor Cost Savings Related to Purchasing and Training 12 5/6/2013 Disadvantages • Cost • Greater Risk of Budget Reductions • Fire Union Not as Receptive to Merger • Smaller CS Department Would Remain Status Quo 13 5/6/2013 Advantages No Additional Cost Potential Salary Expense of Other Options Avoided Increasing Number of Departments Avoided No Need to Adjust Job Titles or Rank Structure Marine Safety Has a Louder Voice in CS than Fire or Police ® Potential MEA Employee Morale Issues Avoided • Some Commonality in Functions Between MS and CS Disadvantages . Department Leader Without Public Safety Background • Morale Issues Among MSMA . Comparable Agencies Favor Fire vs. CS 14 5/6/2013 Conclusions Questions 15 ar�coa�� Q�o a Mph Afid(m@n b kgft§ Citi-«f ffunlinglon Beach Table of Contents CHAPTERI—INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 Purposeof the Study.....................................................................................................................................1 Methodology..................................................................................................................................................2 CHAPTERII—ANALYSIS................................................................................................................3 Current Organization Chart—Community Services Department..................................................................3 Comparison to the Police Department..........................................................................................................5 Table II-A— 10-year Analysis of Budget& Full-time Staff, Full-Time Personnel (number of full-time staff)...............................................................................................................................5 Table II-B— FY 2013/14 Police Position Control Chart.................................................................................6 Table II-C—Annual Beach Visitors ................................................................................. .............................7 Exhibit II-B—Annual Beach Visitors..............................................................................................................7 Comparisonwith the Fire Department...........................................................................................................8 CommunityServices Department..................................................................................................................8 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................9 FurtherAnalysis of MSMA Proposals............................................................................................................9 CHAPTER III—PRACTICES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA BEACH CITIES/COUNTIES.................................12 Table III-A—Survey of 22 California Beach Jurisdictions Organizational Alignment..................................12 Table III-B—California Jurisdictions Providing Marine Safety Services to Over 1,000,000 Visitors Per year.........................................................................................................................13 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................14 CHAPTER IV-HUNTINGTON BEACH MARINE SAFETY ORGANIZATIONAL OPTIONS...........................15 MarineSafety Department..........................................................................................................................15 Summary...............................................................................................................................................16 BeachService Department .........................................................................................................................17 Proposed Organization Chart, Department of Beach Services...................................................................17 Summary...............................................................................................................................................18 Mergerwith the Police Department.............................................................................................................19 Summary...............................................................................................................................................20 Mergerwith the Fire Department.................................................................................................................20 Summary...............................................................................................................................................22 CommunityServices Department................................................................................................................22 Summary...............................................................................................................................................23 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................23 C'ii}-of Huntin ion Reach Chapter I Introduction Incor or ted in 1 0 , Huntin ton e ch h rown fro II e ide town to n ener etic be ch front City of 1 7071. a ide it bu ine nd indu try with ore th n 100,000 job , ttr ctive re identi I re , nd terlin co erci I re , jor focu of the City i it . ile of ri tine be ch hi hli hted by the Huntin ton e ch Pier. At 1, feet, it i the Ion e t unici I ier in the n tion. A nu ber of eci I event occur durin the ye r t the be ch, nd it ttr ct ore th n 1 ,000,000 vi itor ye r, with 000,000— 10,000,000 of the a vi itor u in the City' be the . The City h h d Ion hi tory of rovidin life u rd nd other rine fety ervice to re ident nd the illion of vi itor to it be the . The on in I two life u rd were a loyed in 1 1 , with the fir t full- ti a life u rd hired in 1 1. In the 0' the e o ition were in the Fire De rt ent, nd then for nu ber of ye r the a ervice were rovided throu h the City' H rbor nd a the De rt ent. y 1 7 , thi De rt ent w er ed with the ecre tion nd P rk De rt ent to for the Co unity ervice De rt ent. Thi De rt ent con i t of the Divi ion of F cilitie , Develo ent nd Conce - ion , ecre tion, Hu n nd Cultur I ervice , e ch O er tion , nd M rine fety. Purpose ®f Study A rently over ti e t ff of the M rine fety Divi ion, Ion with e ber of the M rine fety M n- e ent A oci tion (M MA), h been concerned with rovidin qu Iity ervice within the or niz - tion I fr ework of the Co unity ervice De rt ent. Cut b ck in full-ti e t ff city-wide I o i - cted the M rine fety Divi ion with the reduction of M rine Lieuten nt o ition nu ber of ye r o, the ore recent unfundin of M rine fety Officer, the re Iloc tion in rt-ti e life u rd hour th t included the clo ure of three life u rd tower north of oldenwe t treet. There w I o the eli i- n tion of off e on ni ht trot . Currently, the Divi ion h M rine fety Divi ion Chief, M rine fety Lieuten nt , M rine fety Officer ll, . Ad ini tr tive ecret ry, recurrent t ff i ned to u ervi a nd i le ent the Junior Life u rd ro r nd nu ber of rt-ti e recurrent life u rd who re e loyed fro M rch throu h Dece ber. The concern ex re ed bout bein Ioc ted in the Co unity ervice De rt ent ee to be the er- ceived I ck of le der hi nd focu on the need of the M rine fety Divi ion nd whether or not re- ource re ro erly rioritized within the De rt ent nd o ibly within the City. Tied to th t concern i the worry th t the need nd re ource reque t fro the M rine fety Divi ion re bein filtered nd re not co in to the ttention of the City M n er nd City Council. Al o rel ted to th t concern i the que - tion whether or not rine fety h the ro er le der hi with de rt ent he d without rine fety b ck round. Further, there i concern th t over ti a the indu try-wide re ut tion of the Huntin - ton e ch Life u rd "Le der in Life vin y be di ini hed. In ny event, the M MA h ro o ed reor nizin the Co unity ervice De rt ent by ddin new de rt ent entitled, "The e ch ervice De rt ent," con i tin of the e ch O er tion , P rkin nd C in , uch of the F cilitie , Develo ent nd Conce ion , nd M rine fety Divi ion of the Co unity ervice De rt ent. ecific Ily, the ro o ed De rt ent would h ve the Divi ion of M - rine fety nd Life u rd ervice F cilitie , Develo ent nd Conce ion, Meter nd M inten nce nd e ch O er tion . An Itern tive reco end tion i th t the M rine fety Divi ion beco e e r to de rt ent. There i no reco end tion concernin wh t would h en to the re inder of 01 e ti te, City of Huntin ton a ch web ite City of ilnntington Beach the Community Services Department under either of these two proposals, although an earlier proposal suggested merging the Recreation, Human, and Cultural Services Division with the Library Department. If the Marine Safety Division became a separate department, presumably Beach Services, Parking and Facilities, Development and Concessions could remain in a smaller Community Services Department, or if a merger occurred with the Library for recreation and cultural services, Beach Services and Parking could be relocated to the Public Works and Police Departments which is a practice of other cities. The purpose of this report is to evaluate these two proposals as well as assessing other organizational options such as merging Marine Safety with the Police or Fire Departments, or retaining this function with- in Community Services. The options being evaluated in this report, then, are: • Create a Marine Safety Department; • Create a Beach Services Department; • Merge Marine Safety with the Police Department; • Merge Marine Safety with the Fire Department; • Retain Marine Safety in the Community Services Department. One issue which will not be addressed in this study is the issue of job classification and employee com- pensation. For example, if Marine Safety is merged with the Police Department, will a Marine Safety Lieu- tenant be at the same pay grade as a Police Lieutenant, or will a Marine Safety Officer II be at the same pay grade as a Police Sergeant?These classification issues will not be analyzed in this report. This issue is highlighted since in some of the background information reviewed for this report there ap- peared to be classification and compensation issues raised by marine safety personnel. While there will be a need to examine the duties performed by marine safety staff, this report will only make recommen- dations regarding how this staff and the marine safety and related functions should fit into the City's orga- nizational structure. Any subsequent classification issues that may be created as a result of a proposed reorganization will need to be addressed by the City's human resources staff. Methodology The methodology of this study included reviewing documents and data supplied by the City of Huntington Beach. This includes organization charts, data from the City's budget, a 2011 City Strategic Plan paper prepared by the Deputy City Manager and the Fire Chief and a 2012 water rescue white paper prepared by the Fire Department, internal memos and letters. Also data from the United States Lifesaving Associa- tion website was reviewed as well as a letter to the City Council from its executive officer. A study per- formed by a consultant in 2002 was reviewed. Substantial material provided by MSMA was reviewed in- cluding a PowerPoint presentation, articles, charts and financial data, and a report on Lifeguard Effective- ness prepared by a working group that included the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, interviews were conducted with various staff including the Marine Safety Division Chief, Acting Community Services Director, Fire Chief, Police Chief, Human Resources Director, Principal Personnel Analyst, Finance Director, Budget Manager, Library Director, Assistant City Manager, MSMA representa- tives, the supervisors of Beach Operations and Parking/Camping, and a representative of the United States Lifesaving Association. Also, conversations were held with the President of the Huntington Beach Firefighter's Association and the former President and current board member of the Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association. Survey information was obtained comparing the level of activity and organizational structure of California jurisdictions which provide ocean lifeguard services. An emphasis was on the marine safety agencies serving the largest visitor beach population served in Southern California with similar service levels to the City of Huntington Beach. j: Page r?f IIunIin(,IOn Beuc]7 The information gleaned from document and data review, interviews, and survey data for other jurisdic- tions was analyzed from the perspective of the best organizational structure, operational efficiency, and cost impact on the City. City o1'Htw1ing1on Beach Chapter II Analysis As mentioned in Chapter I — Introduction, the purpose of this study is to evaluate a proposal to create a Beach Services Department consisting of the current Community Services Department Divisions of Ma- rine Safety, Beach Operations, and the event/concession portion of Facilities, Development and Conces- sions Division, or create a standalone Marine Safety Department. The current Community Services De- partment organization chart with the sections identified that would be part of the proposed Beach Servic- es Department are shown in the following organization chart. Current Organization Chart Community Services Department Director of Community Services Proposed Department Recreation,Human and Cultural Facilities, Marine Safety Division Development& Beach•O erationsDivision Services Division Concession DivisionI P Superintendent Manager 1 Marine Safety Division Chief Supervisor These proposals were developed due to a number of factors. Probably the chief factor is the loss of staff resources in providing marine safety services, and the frustration by this group of employees to "be at the budget table" in advocating that adequate resources be provided for their operation. Instead, being part of another department, the concept is that as a standalone department, either as a Marine Safety or Beach Services Department, they will have a more direct voice in competing for scarce resources. The MSMA, for example, has pointed to the loss of a Lieutenant position a number of years ago, the un-funding of one Marine Safety Officer II, the loss of recurrent staff which may have impacted the closure of three beach lifeguard towers, and the loss of night patrols as a reduction in the ability of Marine Safety to provide ade- quate service to the public. Even though these cut backs might have occurred anyway, the inability to be a direct advocate in the budget process is frustrating to those currently providing ocean lifeguard service in Huntington Beach. An article in American Lifeguard Magazine quotes Mike Beuerlein, then President of the California Surf Lifesaving Association, and a City of Huntington Beach Lifeguard Lieutenant, "As funding becomes tighter and tighter, lifesaving needs to be funded and treated with the same regard as other public safety profes- sions—for without proper funding, the job of preventing injury and saving lives is much more difficult."The strong motivation to have the resources to accomplish the lifeguard duties of preventing injury, treating those who are injured, and in saving lives is evident in this statement and in the everyday efforts of life- guards in Huntington Beach and elsewhere. There is no doubt that the City's lifeguards are passionate 2 2010 Winter Issue, American Lifeguard Magazine City of HunliHalon Beacll about fulfilling this mission. The motivation on their part seems to be to secure a more equal status with police and fire in having a platform for advocating for a share of the City's limited resources. Organiza- tionally, this includes a desire in having an individual with a public safety background heading the marine safety function, either as head of a Beach Services or Marine Safety Department, or being part of either the Police or Fire Department. Another issue, which is not a focus of this report, is whether lifeguards are compensated at the same lev- el as their counterparts in nearby jurisdictions. For example, organizationally the location of the marine safety function has changed in other jurisdictions, compared to Huntington Beach. For example, in both nearby Long Beach and Newport Beach, lifeguards and those supervising and administering the lifeguard function, have been folded into the fire department. That has led to a different classification and salary structure in these cities. Information prepared by MSMA, for example, reports that when Newport Beach moved their Lifeguards to the Fire Department, their Marine Safety Officer Its became Marine Safety Cap- tains and Marine Safety Lieutenants became Battalion Chiefs. Those in the Huntington Beach marine safety service see others performing the same work with the same responsibilities, but possibly being classified differently and paid more than those in Huntington Beach. It is understandable that classifica- tion and compensation may be a concern since the Marine Safety Division is a small unit of full-time em- ployees, with little employee turnover resulting in few opportunities for advancement. While this study is evaluating an organizational proposal for a Beach Services Department, or a Marine Safety Department, an underlying factor which may need to be addressed in the future could be classification and compensa- tion issues as a result of any reorganization. Returning to the resource allocation issue, MSMA perceives that with the Community Services Director presenting the Marine Safety budget and by not being "at the budget table" with the City Manager and City Council when budget decisions are made, they do not receive as many resources as other City de- partments. Of course, during recent years of economic decline of the Great Recession, City policy-makers have been challenged with how to allocate limited resources. The City Manager, through his staff, has a thorough budget process in reviewing the budget requests of the various departments and their compo- nent divisions. This normally is within the parameters or constraints provided by the City Manager ex- pressed as budget "targets" based on expected revenues for the coming fiscal year. Difficult decisions have to be made, ultimately by the City Manager, in formulating a proposed expenditure plan for submittal to the City Council which makes the final budget decisions. Department head staff interviewed perceives that the City Council has been making across-the-board cuts, not specific or surgical cuts to departmental budgets. Further, until recently, an Assistant City Manager was well aware of any Marine Safety needs and re- quests since he was also acting head of the Community Services Department for the past two years. So Marine Safety certainly had direct access to the highest administrative levels of the City during this period of time. The City Manager's proposed expenditure plan is based upon a review of budget requests from each De- partment, using "targets" for the annual budget based on available projected revenue. Each Division and Department is not necessarily satisfied with the resources they are eventually allocated. But initially the City Manager, and ultimately the City Council must make these difficult decisions that normally reduce the budgets and/or resources available to each City function. It is a matter of City operations adjusting to the "new normal" of municipal finance. More specifically as it relates to the Marine Safety Division, it was reported by the former Assistant City Manager that during the past two budget cycles there was no city-wide capacity for enhanced services or resources. In fact, when the current budget was adopted the Marine Safety Division was spared cuts by making other adjustments in other divisions of the Community Services Department. Further, even though additional funds were not provided, the head of the Marine Safety Division was given latitude to adjust the allocation of resources provided to his Division.3 3 Email, Assistant City Manager, City of Anaheim, former Assistant City Manager, City of Huntington Beach, March 6, 2013 01.V 01'I11l�rt Beuch The closure of the towers mentioned above were closed due to limited resources city-wide and with the acknowledgement that these areas were least frequented by patrons.. In any event, the Marine Safety Chief was given the discretion to open these towers with part-time resources. In fact, it is understood that one or more of these towers were opened during this past summer using this authority.4 It should be noted that in the area of capital improvements, which normally have a different funding source than operations, Marine Safety has seen many improvements as part of redevelopment of the beach area, including a new Marine Safety Headquarters, a new Tower Zero, and a Junior Lifeguard Headquarters. They have also obtained improved beach vehicles through outside sponsorships. Comparison to the Police Department MSMA contends that they have not kept pace with the resources allocated to the Police and Fire Depart- ments. In data provided by MSMA, for example, (see chart titled 10-Year Analysis of Budget and Full- time Staff'), which MSMA used in its power point presentation to the consultant and apparently to City of- ficials and staff as well, it is contended that full-time staffing for the Police Department was reduced only .5% from 369 full-time positions in 2001/02 to 367 in 2010/11. During the same time period, it is asserted that staffing in the Marine Safety Division was reduced 15 percent from 15 to 13 full-time positions. The Finance Department, however, indicates that the staff reduction during this period of time was 14 to 13 full-time positions, a reduction of 7 percent. Table 11-A iBudgeted Dept. Budget 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005106 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Change %Rate Police 369 369 367 371 371.5 376 381 381 381 367 -2 -0.50% Fire 156 156 155 156 157 184 185 185 184 176.5 20.5 13% Community 63.25 63.25 63.25 62.25 66.5 69.75 69.75 6975 69.75 62 -1.25 -2% Service Marine 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 -2 -15% Safety NOTE:MSMA indicates that they obtained this data from budget reports posed on City website. This data was not verified with the City Finance De- partment. This Table, in comparing Police and Marine Safety staffing, really presents data that is an apples and oranges comparison. Proportionately, the Marine Safety function has a much larger contingent of part- time positions required to fulfill their life safety mission compared to the number of part-time positions in the Police Department. While recurrent or part-time hours have also been reduced, a comparison of the loss of full-time positions in Marine Safety vs. the Police Department, which has few part-timers, is an im- precise comparison. Since there is such a small contingent of full-time positions in Marine Safety com- pared to the Police Department, even the loss of one of these positions constitutes a large percentage loss to the Division. A much more important point is that the Police Department has also lost significant resources. Currently, the Department has 32 unfilled, unfunded sworn positions. The Position Control Chart maintained by the Finance Department shows that for 2013-14, 32.01 out of 358.50 positions, or 8.9%, are unfunded.5 This includes the absence of funding for 1.01 Lieutenant, 1.00 Sergeant and 23.00 Police Officers. In fact, out of 191 police officer positions, 23 of these positions are defunded. This amounts to a 12% reduction in the number of police officers available to serve the City since no funding is available to fill these positions. (See Table II-B entitled, "2013-14 Police Position Control Chart." 4 Ibid 5 Also, the 358.50 positions are 8.5 positions less than the 367 reported for 2010-11 by MSMA. Table FY 2013/14 Police POsition c6ntrd Chart - Job# Job Description Revised FY 12/13 Defunded FY 12/13 0286 Accounting Technician I -- -- 0287 Accounting Technician II 3.00 -- 0089 Admin Analyst Sr 2.00 -- 0278 Administrative Assistant 1.00 -- 0289 Administrative Secretary 1.00 -- 0162 Civilian Check Investigator 2.00 -- 0280 Communications Operator-PD 18.00 (3.00) 0281 Communications Supervisor-PD 6.00 -- 0263 Community Relations Specialist 1.00 -- 0312 Court Liaison Specialist 1.00 -- 0166 Crime Analyst 1.00 -- 0165 Crime Analyst Senior -- -- 0255 Crime Scene Investigator 6.00 -- 0119 Criminalist -- -- 0400 Custodian -- -- 0486 Detention Administrator 1.00 -- 0221 Detention Officer 9.00 -- 0220 Detention Officer-Nurse 4.00 -- 0222 Detention Shift Supervisor 4.00 -- 0472 Equip/Auto Maint Crewleader -- -- 0143 Facilities Maint Crewleader 1.00 -- 0470 Forensic Systems Specialist 1.00 -- 0337 Helicopter Maintenance Tech 1.00 -- 0492 Info Systems Technician IV -- -- 0163 Latent Fingerprint Examiner 2.50 -- 0348 Mechanic II -- -- 0455 Parking/Traffic Control Coord -- -- 0262 Parking/Traffic Control Officer 16.00 -- 0577 Parking/Traffic Control Supv 1.00 -- 0594 Police Administrative Services Manager 1.00 -- 0233 Police Captain 3.00 -- 0011 Police Chief 1.00 -- 0022 Police Communications Manager 1.00 -- 0234 Police Lieutenant 10.00 (1.01) 0223 Police Officer 191.00 (23.00) 0197 Police Photo/Imaging Specialist 1.00 -- 0094 Police Records Administrator 1.00 -- 0307 Police Records Specialist 11.00 -- 0283 Police Records Supervisor 3.00 -- 0282 Police Records Technician 6.00 -- 0225 Police Recruit 4.00 (4.00) 0159 Police Sergeant 27.00 (1.00) 0308 Police Services Specialist 12.00 -- 0215 Police Systems Coordinator 1.00 -- 0259 Property Officer 2.00 -- 0334 Senior Helicopter Maint Tech 1.00 -- TOTAL 358.50 (32.01) ref Hunlingnon Beach It would appear based on "spendable" resources in the City's expenditure plan that the reduction percen- tage-wise in sworn public safety officers is roughly comparable between Police and Marine Safety (12% vs. 15%) using the numbers supplied by MSMA. According the City's budget officer, however, there has only been one full-time position eliminated during the 10 year period being compared. This would amount to a reduction of seven percent, rather than 15%, less than is being experienced by the Police Depart- ment. Another concern was expressed that the Police Department received more staff when the Hyatt was opened in 2003, and Marine Safety did not. Data gleaned from the United States Lifesaving Association Website indicates that attendance varies from year to year since a variety of factors can influence this at- tendance. The data reported in Table II-C shows that attendance during the last 10 years reported on the website, which is self-reported by the City, indicates a variation from 8.0 — 10.5 million visitors per year (rounded). As the chart shows, attendance was relatively flat during the development and opening of the Hyatt at about 8.0 million visitors per year(rounded), then peaked from 2006-2009, and now has returned to the level of 8.0 million visitors (rounded) of 2002-2004. BeachTable II-C Annual , Year Est.Annual Beach Visitors 2002 8,000,000 2003 8,000,000 2004 8,000,000 2005 9,000,000 2006 10,100,000 2007 10,200,000 2008 10,500,000 2009 9,700,000 2010 8,000,000 2011 7,900,000 This same information is shown on the following graph entitled, "Exhibit II-B — Annual Beach Visitors." Again, this data was obtained from the U. S. Lifesaving Association website. Exhibit II-B—Annual Beach Visitors 12,0:00,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,0:00,0g0 2,000,000 0 2002 203 204 2005 2006 207 20M 2004 2010 2011 (,ilj"g1 Itntington Beach On the other hand, the Police Department likely expected increased law enforcement activity as a result of this major new tourist facility. Obviously, this is a decision over allocation of resources made nearly a decade ago, and is not a current issue. But the Police Department probably had a stronger argument for more staff than did Marine Safety since the number of beach goers in broad terms was not trending up- ward at that time. In any case, due to the economic downturn, it appears that percentage-wise the Police Department has been hit as hard or harder compared to Marine Safety in recent years, especially since the Police Department currently has 32 defunded positions. Another issue regarding the allocation of resources as it relates to law enforcement is the contention by MSMA that because of the reduction in recurrent lifeguard hours, and the loss of night rescue capability, a gap in protection has been created for those smuggling drugs or undocumented aliens into California. It was mentioned that there have been nine panga boat landings on the beach. It is reported by the Police Chief, however, that there have only been six panga boat landings. His view is that these landings have nothing to do with whether or not there is a Marine Safety presence, but has more to do with a significant increase in securit� along the International Border with Mexico forcing this form of attempted access into the United States. Comparison with the Fire Department The comparison of Marine Safety with the Fire Department over resource allocation is even more dis- torted after the original data from MSMA is examined. While the raw budget data obtained by MSMA indi- cates that full-time fire staff grew from 156 positions to 176.5 from 2001/02 through 2010/11, that compar- ison ignores that this bump in Fire staffing was due to the Fire Department bringing the ambulance opera- for staffing in-house. The City had contracted with a private company for ambulance personnel and in . 2006 took the staffing in-house to save money. This increased the overall staffing within the Department by 24 positions. Over the ten year period being evaluated from the budget data supplied by MSMA the Fire Department actually reduced their staffing. During the past five years, for example, the Department is full-time staffing has been reduced from 185 to 176.5. From another perspective, the Huntington Beach Firefighters Association (HBFA) has lost 7% of their membership positions since 2009/2010. These positions have either been frozen and unfunded, com- pletely eliminated, or permanently replaced with non-safety positions. All of these positions were either promotional or career development positions that came with increased pay. Further, one of the five Batta- lion Chief positions has been lost which is a 20% reduction at this rank. Community Services Department While a concern has been expressed that having a non-safety department head has hurt the ability of Ma- rine Safety to obtain needed General Fund resources for staffing compared to the Police and Fire De- partments, an examination of the staffing data does not support that conclusion. As mentioned earlier, during the past two budget cycles the Marine Safety Division avoided budget reduc- tions which were redirected to other parts of the Community Services Department. Plus, Marine Safety had direct access to an Assistant City Manager during this time since he was overseeing the Department in the absence of a Department Director. In connection with capital improvement funds and grants, which cannot be used for general operations, it appears that Marine Safety has fared well while in Community Services. As mentioned previously, staff from that Department cite a number of capital and equipment improvements, including: • New Marine Safety Headquarters; 6 Huntington Beach Police Chief, March 1, 2013. Email, Huntington Beach Fire Chief, February 21, 2013. $ Email, Huntington Beach Fire Chief, February 22, 2012. City ol'Ri ntinglon Beach • New Marine Education Center— Home of the Junior Lifeguards; • New Tower Zero; • New Beach Services Center; and • Improved Beach Vehicles. In a more recent communication exchange there was concern that the Acting Community Services Direc- tor did not pass along the Marine Safety's six goals as part of a City Council strategic planning process.9 The concern was that the Acting Director's submittal screened out Marine Safety's specific goals. It ap- pears, however, that the Acting Director's 'goals' were broadly stated and generally encompassed the Marine Safety Division's submittals which could be characterized as 'objectives.' While the City's Strategic Planning nomenclature may reflect different definitions of"goals" and "objectives," the relationship of what was submitted by the Acting Director to what was submitted by the Marine Safety Division is like broadly stated "goals" compared to more specific"objectives." The Acting Director's first goal: submit "a recommendation for appropriate placement of marine safety within the city organization," which generally encompasses the Division's first objective of"determine the feasibility and necessary steps to create a Beach Services Department." The Acting Director's second goal of developing "a plan to provide adequate marine safety services during the summer," certainly would seem to embrace the Division's objectives of: "restore hours of operation," "provide lifeguard ser- vice to Sunset Beach," restore the "frozen unfunded" position (MSO) and "develop a long-term plan to provide adequate permanent staff."Apparently, as a result of that process, the issues of organization and next year's budget concerns as it relates to Marine Safety are now being discussed with management as part of the Strategic Planning process. Conclusions In comparing the reduction of resources among Marine Safety, Police, and Fire, it appears in general terms that Marine Safety did not fare any worse than the two large public safety departments of the City (Police and Fire). Actually, some could argue that they have fared better than these two public safety de- partments. Further, it appears that the Marine Safety Chief had direct access to an Assistant City Manag- er over the past two years for discussing operational and resource issues. Finally, it appears that Marine Services has fared well in achieving capital and equipment improvements as part of the Community Ser- vices Department. It should be recognized that the loss of resources for a smaller operating unit, even with the loss of only one full-time position (MSO), can be magnified and are more noticeable to those in such a unit. However, while the Marine Safety Division may feel that they have lost more resources by not having the same de- partmental status as the Police and Fire Departments, it appears from a board perspective that all three functions have been uniformly damaged in terms of a reduced resource allocation as a result of the eco- nomic downturn which has hampered full funding of city budgets throughout the state. In other words, Ma- rine Safety likely would not have achieved any better results in avoiding budget cuts if they had a "seat at the (budget) table" as a City department. It is only speculative whether Marine Safety would have fared better if they were part of the Police or Fire Departments. It should be observed in that connection, how- ever, that when both Police and Fire are facing budget cutbacks, the number one priority of these two de- partments likely will not be Marine Safety. Further Analysis of MSMA Proposals The MSMA has made it clear that they are offering two proposals. One is the creation of a Beach Servic- es Department, which would include the Community Services Divisions of Marine Safety, Beach Opera- tions and the event/concession portion of the Facilities, Development and Concession Division. These are 9 Letter, Huntington Beach Marine Safety Management Association, January 31, 2013. City`of'llunthtaton L'ca(,17 three current divisions of the Community Services Department. This assumes that the Marine Safety Divi- sion Chief would be the head of this department since it is their desire to be led by a public safety sworn officer who understands the life safety role of marine safety services. The second proposal is that Marine Safety become a separate City department. While this would be a smaller department, the position of the MSMA is that this would be less costly to implement. It would still achieve their objectives of having department status where their ability to argue for adequate resources would be enhanced. If these options are not recommended or implemented, the MSMA next preferred options would be to be included in either the Police or Fire Departments. While MSMA realizes that there would be less supervi- sion of their function in the Community Services Department, they would prefer to be included in either of the two public safety departments because of the broad similarity of their public safety mission with police or fire. It should be clear to MSMA that, while they are a major operation in the Community Services De- partment, they would be a much smaller function in either police or fire because of the larger size of these departments. Among the public safety departments, MSMA's first choice would be inclusion in the Police Department. This is for a variety of reasons. One is that the rank structure in Police is more similar to Marine Safety than Fire. Another is that Lifeguards and Police Officers sometimes perform joint patrols on the beach and offer support to one another during incidents on the beach. In a letter from the President of the U.S. Lifesaving Association, also points out that "Police are also typically uninterested in broadening into life- guard rescue functions."10 He points out, however, that this alignment "requires an acceptance by life- guards of aspects of the police culture, which may include full level background investigations for full-time personnel." While there is some similarity in function, and the lifeguards have limited law enforcement authority such as issuing citations and warnings, their broader mission seems more in tune with Fire (rescue, lifesaving, medical aid, and prevention) or Community Services (enhancing and encouraging recreational opportuni- ties and experience; overseeing a special recreation resource such as a major ocean beach). Another factor in MSMA supporting a merger with Police rather than Fire appears to be a concern that there would be greater supervision of the marine safety function from the Fire Department and that Fire would try to change some of the practices used by Marine Safety in responding to rescues and/or medical aids. The examples cited to support this concern, however, were historical and one was from another City. In Newport Beach, for example, their Fire Department apparently mandated one person rather than two person units, although that occurred in the mid-90s. This decision apparently was reversed a few years later. Also, another historical example expressed by a MSMA representative concerned a former Lifeguard who later became a Fire Captain who expressed the view that Marine Safety should change their operation by replacing the rescue boat with two wave runners. There is not necessarily a correlation between a service level decision that was taken by another city fire department, or an opinion expressed by an individual Huntington Beach Fire Captain who is now retired, compared to the position that would be taken by the current Fire administration. Related to this latter point is a more recent concern by MSMA that with the elimination of a night presence by lifeguards. When that occurred the Fire Department proposed that firefighters be trained to respond to any rescues which might occur after the lifeguard work hours. MSMA worries that this is an example where Fire will start taking steps to modify their lifesaving service practices and begin providing that ser- vice with firefighters in the evening. There is clearly a reluctance on the part of MSMA to support night time ocean rescue responses by Fire. The Fire Chief, however, only views this effort by the Fire Department as filling a service level need during the night time because of the cutback of lifeguard staff. In fact, he feels that the City would be better served if this service were provided by the Marine Safety Division rather than by the Fire Department. 10 Letter, President, U.S. Lifesaving Association, January 11, 2013. C'it�v c?f Iluntinglon Beach In an Ocean Rescue Position Paper from Fire it was stated: "There is no doubt that our lifeguards bring more experience and knowledge to water rescues. With this in mind, the best option would be to increase life Puard staffing in order to provide cover- age during all hours that the beach is open to the public."' But since there was a gap in service, the Fire Department likely does not want to be placed in the same embarrassing position as the Alameda Fire Department a few years ago when responding firefighters stood on the South Shore Beach and watched a man drown since they did not have the training to rescue him. This service gap in Huntington Beach was recently resolved by having an on-call lifeguard available at night. Beginning October 2012, one Marine Safety Officer is assigned a pager/phone with an emergency vehicle, radio, uniform, gear, and equipment to respond to an emergency call within two minutes and ar- rive on scene within 10 minutes. This is, of course, not at the same level of response previously pro- vided,12 but provides the ability to respond at night within the City's limited resources. The Huntington Beach Firefighters Association have indicated that have some concerns should Marine Safety be merged into the Fire Department. While a representative of the firefighters union felt that fire- fighters and marine safety officers work well together, a concern was expressed that, if future across the board budget reductions were necessary with Marine Safety in the Fire Department, Fire Operations might experience greater cuts. While this is a valid concern, one can only speculate what priorities would be set by Fire management be- tween the Fire Operations and Marine Safety functions in the face of any future across the board budget cuts. In that respect, Marine Safety may find itself a second class citizen in a much larger department, whether in Police or Fire, compared to the department where they are now assigned. If a decision is made to merge Marine Safety with Fire, there is clearly a need to have pre-meetings to clarify the role and intent of the Fire Department in overseeing marine safety services. The concerns of MSMA would need to be addressed and fully discussed in order to develop a comfort level that marine safety services would not be degraded or the training for the provision of these services modified. It should be noted, however, that because of the role of emergency medical response of the Fire Depart- ment including rescues, and the fact that the Fire Department's mission is more closely aligned with Ma- rine Safety than Police, then the Fire Department might be more 'hands on' in managing Marine Safety than the Police Department. " Huntington Beach Fire Department, Ocean Rescue Position Paper, July 2012. 12 President, MSMA, email March 3, 2013. (ViY ofllunlhi glmi Beach Chapter III Practices of Other California Beach Cities/Counties In addition to the MSMA perspective of their place with the City's organization, it is also informative to view the practices of other local agencies which provide ocean rescue services. This section examines the practices of other California jurisdictions which provide marine safety services to the beaches within their communities. City staff surveyed 22 jurisdictions13 throughout the State which provide ocean lifeguard service. This sur- vey was refined since this survey missed the marine safety services provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department, which are substantial in scope. This information was added to the survey. Also Santa Monica was deleted from this survey since its beaches have been served by Los Angeles County Fire since the 1970s. This adjustment in surveyed jurisdictions resulted in data which shows that 12 out of 22 agencies, or slightly over half, assign this service to the fire department. In the remaining 10 agencies, five cities assign this function to a community services or parks and recreation department, two were standalone departments, two were part of the harbor department, and one was administered by the police department. The results of this survey, as supplemented, are pre- sented in Table III-A, entitled, "Survey of 22 California Beach Jurisdictions, Organizational Alignment." Survey of 22 California Beach Jurisdictions Table 1111-A City Fire CS/P&R Harbor Police Stand Alone Ca itola ✓ Coronado ✓ Del Mar ✓ Encinitas ✓ HUNTINGTON BEACH ✓ Imperial Beach ✓ Laguna Beach ✓ Long Beach ✓ Los Angeles Cit ✓ Los Angeles Count ✓ Newport Beach ✓ Oceanside ✓ Pismo Beach ✓ Port Hueneme ✓ San Clemente ✓ San Diego ✓ San Luis Obispo ✓ Port San Luis ✓ Santa Barbara ✓ Santa Cruz ✓ Seal Beach ✓ Solana Beach ✓ Totals 12 5 2 1 2 13 Memo, "Marine Safety Proposal," Director of Human Resources, January 10, 2013. C,'itY of l-Imainglon Beach Many of the jurisdictions listed in Table III-A serve far fewer visitors than the more active cities like San Diego, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Long Beach. Their operations are much smaller with few- er staff which permits the marine safety function to be easily folded into a larger operation. More pertinent to this study is the practice of agencies with substantial ocean lifeguard responsibilities similar to the City of Huntington Beach. As a result, a more focused list of agencies has been developed for analysis. In the following Table III-B a list of the more active marine safety functions in California are shown, arbi- trarily defined as those operations which serve more than 1,000,000 visitors per year. This Table presents the number of visitors, rescues, medical aids, and preventative actions provided in each jurisdiction. This information is based on 2011 data compiled by the United States Lifesaving Association and is data found on their web site. Table 1111-13 California Jurisdictions Providing Marine Safety Services . Over 000 000 Visitors-Per Year Preventative Jurisdiction Attendance Rescues Medical Aids Actions Department Coronado 3,550,000 212 483 6,756 Fire Del Mar 2,216,969 382 995 5,415 CS/P&R Encinitas 1,434,000 125 2,981 7,634 Fire HUNTINGTON BEACH 7,936,526 3,829 1,349 117,095 CS/P&R Imperial Beach 1,918,700 124 320 19,004 Fire Laguna Beach 4,315,450 2,446 4,316 123,759 Stand Alone Long Beach 6,600,000 3,204 4,775 184,407 Fire Los Angeles City 1,425,182 42 189 18,852 CS/P&R Los Angeles County 61,542,422 8,352 15,156 939,366 Fire Oceanside 4,012,800 1,689 2,760 60,112 Fire Newport Beach 9,446,850 3,525 6,969 131,688 Fire Seal Beach 2,100,000 1,339 1,182 51,235 Stand Alone San Clemente 2,232,600 2,553 1,349 42,987 CS/P&R San Diego 21,705,659 5,333 4,217 223,845 Fire As can be seen from this chart, Huntington Beach has the fourth most visitors among the 14 jurisdictions surveyed with an annual estimated attendance in 2011 of 7,936,526. This is behind Los Angeles County, and the cities of San Diego and Newport Beach. It reported the third most rescues (3,829) behind Los Angeles County and San Diego. Huntington Beach, however, was not as active in providing the number of medical aids, tied with San Clemente for 8th behind Los Angeles County, Newport Beach, Long Beach, Laguna Beach, San Diego, Encinitas, and Oceanside. In terms of preventative actions (such as rip cur- rent warnings) Huntington Beach was 6th following Los Angeles County, San Diego, Long Beach, Newport Beach, and Laguna Beach. From an organization perspective the Table III-B shows that 8 of the 14 jurisdictions which have a larger service responsibility in terms of visitors' served slightly over 50% provide marine safety services through their fire departments. Four agencies provide this service through the community services or parks and recreation department, and two are standalone operations. Of course, the number of visitors served varies widely from an estimated 1.4 million in Encinitas and the City of Los Angeles, to over 61 million on beaches serviced by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. By far the largest number of visitors served is by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (61.5 million) along with the City of San Diego Fire Department (21.7 million). These jurisdictions are followed by New- port Beach with 9.4 million visitors, Huntington Beach with 7.9 million visitors,14 and Long Beach with 6.6 million visitors. It is informative that among these five jurisdictions which have the largest service demand in terms of visitors, four provide their marine safety services through their fire department. The only ex- 14 Material supplied by MSMA indicates that the average visitor attendance during the five year period 2005 - 2009 was 9.93 million. However, attendance will vary from year to year, and the 2011 data from the USLA was used for consistency in comparing Huntington Beach with other agencies. C'it��raf'�rtrn�i�a�rtut� I3t�czrlt ception is Huntington Beach which provides the service through their Community Services Department. It appears that there has been a general trend for the marine safety function to migrate to the fire depart- ment over the past two decades. But this function is also found in other departments as well as a standa- lone department. Conclusion As a general conclusion from the data provided in the two tables, the most common organization ar- rangement for the provision of marine safety service is through a jurisdiction's fire department. This is based on 12 out of 22 jurisdictions providing this service in a survey of jurisdictions which provide this service up and down the California coast. Among the larger marine service operations most similar to Huntington Beach, based principally in Southern California, 8 out of 14 of these jurisdictions assign this function to the fire department. The fact that four of the five jurisdictions from this group that serve the most visitors assign this function to the fire department is also informative. It is assumed that this may be . in part because of the common mission between fire and marine safety related to rescue and providing medical aid. In the above surveys it should be noted that there are two busy but smaller marine safety functions in La- guna Beach and Seal Beach which provide these functions through a standalone department. Seal Beach, however, contracts for fire services and does not have a city fire department option for overseeing the marine safety operation. Laguna Beach, on the other hand, has the option to merge this function with their fire department but has chosen not to use this organizational arrangement. Page C'ily ofNirnlington Beach Chapter IV untin ton each Marine Safety Or anizational Options Based on input from MSMA, an analysis of the resource allocation issue among the City's three public safety functions, the experience of other comparable agencies, and the application of organizational prin- ciples, an analysis of options for the placement of the Marine Safety Division in the City of Huntington Beach organizational structure are presented in this section. To recap, the organizational options for placement of Marine Safety are: • Create a Marine Safety Department; • Create a Beach Services Department; • Merge Marine Safety with the Fire Department; • Merge Marine Safety with the Police Department; and • Retain Marine Safety in the Community Services Department. In the earlier Analysis Chapter, issues which have been raised to support changing the current organiza- tional alignment of Marine Safety within the City have been evaluated and discussed. The purpose of this section is to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of each organizational option. Marine Safety Depart ent This proposal would be to remove the Marine Safety Division from the Community Services Department, elevating Marine Safety to a separate City department. Presumably under this scenario, the Community Services Department would remain a separate, but smaller Department. The advantages of this proposal are that the Lifeguards would have a department head with a marine safety background. This person presumably would have the knowledge and skills to supervise the marine safety function and provide leadership to its employees. They would have a better understanding of the needed resources to support the marine safety operations. They would understand the policies and pro- cedures of the marine safety function and have a detailed knowledge how they apply to day-to-day opera- tions. They would also be an advocate for Marine Safety "objectives," not screened by a Department Head. In the on-going Strategic Planning process, however, it appears there may be confusion whether "goals" or "objectives" should first be submitted as part of the current Strategic Planning process as discussed in the Analysis Section. The new department head also would have a "seat at the budget table" in order to be an advocate for that department's needs for the City's limited resources. Marine services would have a 'champion' at the de- partment head level, and requests for these limited resources would not be 'screened' by a non-safety department head. As pointed out in the Analysis Chapter, however, it does not appear that Marine Safety would have fared any better in securing a better allocation of resources whether they were a separate department or part of the Community Services Department. A final advantage is that this would improve the morale of Marine Safety Officers, although it would re- duce the morale of many other City employees. City cif lluntinoton Reach The disadvantages of this proposal include creating an additional small City department resulting in ad- ditional expense to the City. This is because, at a minimum, the division head position would be elevated to a more costly department head position. While the current Marine Safety Chief offered to serve as head of a standalone department without a change in compensation for one-two years, the Human Re- sources Department observed that the Management Employees' Organization (MEO) could file a griev- ance of such an action, if serving in an acting capacity lasted longer than six months. In either event, there would be additional expense either initially or after a period of time. Specifically, according to the Human Resources Director, there initially would be Acting Pay for the new Director at a cost of$28,224. Further, there would be the additional expense of$165,000— 180,000 for a new Community Services Director, or a total additional cost of$193,000 — 208,000. Other costs such as clerical support likely would be generated. This reorganization option would buck the current trend in city government which is to flatten the city or- ganization and streamline its operations by combining departments. This proposal would expand the number of City departments. The creation of an additional department could be mitigated by merging what is left of Community Servic- es with the Library to form a Leisure Services Department. However, the skill sets of those currently over- seeing Community Services and the Library will not make such a transition feasible. Department heads interviewed outside of these two departments share that conclusion. So the final result would be to create a new City department, rather than look for ways to obtain more efficiency by streamlining the organiza- tion. Besides adding another department, the proposed Marine Safety Department is too small to be given separate department status. While there are some small departments, like the Library (27+ full-time posi- tions, it formerly had 37+ full-time positions), and small city offices like the City Clerk, City Attorney, etc., the trend is to avoid creating additional small specialty departments. Even the very important specialty function, ambulance services, has more employees (24) than marine safety, but would not be considered or proposed as a separate city department. Creating a small specialty department would seem to be a move backward, not forward in Huntington Beach's organization structure as the City is trying to adjust to the"new normal" of municipal finance. This proposed option would have a negative impact on the morale of the approximately 35 employees represented by the Municipal Employees Association (MEA). Their view is that they would have addition- al difficulty protecting their employees from budget reductions if the City has three not two public safety departments vying for limited budget resources. They are concerned that this proposed new department does not take into account the impact this option will have on other City employees. They view this option as having a negative impact on the morale of more employees than those that would benefit from this al- ternative. The survey of other jurisdictions which provide ocean lifeguard service, only two smaller jurisdictions op- erate separate marine safety departments. The more common practice is to place this function in fire de- partments (8 jurisdictions) or community services/parks and recreation departments (4 jurisdictions). Su ary Advantages: 1. Department Head with marine safety background; 2. Marine Safety Department would have a department head to advocate Department's budget needs;15 and 3. The Marine Safety requests for resource and other needs would not be screened by a non- marine safety department head. 15 The Analysis Chapter questions whether this is an advantage to this organizational alternative since Marine Safety apparently has not fared worse than Police or Fire in the allocation of staff resources. 17 Pui;c 01V(?f fltrt/tillgIon Beach Disadvantages: 1. The proposal would result in more cost to the City; 2. The current economics of city government trend toward streamlining and flattening the city organization, not expand it; 3. The proposed department is too small to be considered as a city department; 4. This proposed option would have a negative impact on the morale of employees represented by MEA; 5. The trend in other jurisdictions which have evaluated this issue is to merge marine safety ei- ther with fire or community services; and 6. Marine Safety staffing needs do not seem to be damaged by being part of Community Ser- vices any more than if they were a separate department. each Services Depart ent This proposal is to create a department consisting of the divisions of Marine Safety, Parking and Camp- ing, Meters and Maintenance, and Permits, Contracts and Events Support. This proposed department would consist of 25 full-time staff and 205 seasonal staff. (See Proposed Organization Chart — Depart- ment of Beach Services). This Department would require adding another department head level position entitled a Marine Safety Chief, which is included in the 25 full-time staff allocated to this department. The MSMA proposal assumes that the new department head would be the marine safety chief, which in turn would provide two potential internal promotion opportunities (Lieutenant to Marine Safety Division Chief, and Marine Safety Officer II to Lieutenant). Proposed Organization Chart Department of Beach Services Director of Beach Services Marine Safety Chief mil :'Lifeguard arine Safety& \ Permits,Contracts& Operations Parking&Camping Meters&Maintenance Events Support; Marine Safety Manager, Parking Manager Maintenance Manager Support Manager- :' 3 Lieutenants Operations&Logistics I Annual Passes Meters/Repairs Permits r Training&Education Parking Cleaning&Maintenance Concessions Junior Guard Program Camping Sponsorships Special.&Specific Events FT Staff=13 j FT Staff=3 FT Staff=7 FT Staff�='1'':°' Seasonal=145 Seasonal=4o Seasonal=20Seasonal=.0 With this department, what would remain of the Community Services Department are the Recreation, Human and Cultural Services Division. That division could either be a standalone department, or could be considered for merger with the Library Department as part of a new Leisure Services Department. MSMA sees the option of establishing a Beach Services Department as returning an organizational structure similar to the former Harbor and Beaches Department. The advantages of a Beach Services Department are, as with the first option, that the lifeguards would presumably have a department head with a marine safety background. Again, this person would have the knowledge and skills to supervise marine safety, have an understanding of the policies and resources needed for its operation, and provide leadership to this portion of the proposed new department. For this Cite r?f 1-luntilloturt 1 Bach . to occur it is assumed that through the selection/promotion process the Marine Safety Division Chief will demonstrate the ability to supervise the other divisions of this proposed department and advance to head this proposed department. Again, the new department head would have a perceived "seat at the budget table" and serve as an ad- vocate for the department's need for the City's limited resources. Presumably, the new department head would also advocate for the needs of beach maintenance and parking services. Again, as pointed out in the Analysis Chapter, however, it does not appear that creation of a separate department, like Beach Services, would have made any difference in protecting marine safety from the loss of staffing or other resources. This proposed new department has a little more substance as a potential city department compared to a Marine Safety Department. In some respects it returns to a department similar to the old Harbor and Beaches Department, especially if the Harbor Master duties are assigned to the head of this department. However unfortunate as it may be, it appears that cities cannot readily move back in time to previous or- ganizational alignments because of the "new normal" of municipal finance emphasizing a flatter organiza- tional structure with fewer, consolidated departments. The disadvantages of this option are similar to the first option. First, it would create an additional small City Department, although it would be larger than a Marine Safety Department. It would leave a fragment of the Community Services Department, the Division of Recreation, Human and Cultural Services. In ef- fect, it would create two small departments splintering one larger department, increasing rather than de- creasing the number of department directors in the City. Next, this proposal anticipates that the current Marine Safety Division Chief would become the head of this new department. This may occur under this scenario, however, it would need to be determined if the Chief's assumption of additional divisional responsibilities would be within his management skill set. Another option to creating a second small department by splitting Community Services, is to merge Recreation, Human and Cultural Services and the Library Department. As discussed above, this would . not be a feasible functional arrangement given the skill sets of the two managers that would be involved in such a merger. It would likely create a dysfunctional department that would have the further disadvan- tage of creating a morale problem among some of those involved in providing recreation and library ser- vices. Another disadvantage is that MEA concludes that this alternative also would have a negative impact on the morale of its members. They are concerned that this option, as well as the previous one, does not consider the impact this alternative has on affected MEA employees. An additional disadvantage is that this proposal would be more expensive. While MSMA proposes that the new department head, assuming it is the current Marine Safety Chief, would not receive an increase in pay. As mentioned earlier, however, could be grieved by MEO after six months according to the Human Resources Director. In addition, the Chief indicated to senior management that he would expect a salary adjustment after a period of time. When this occurs there would be an initial expense of$28,224 in Acting Pay. Further, it has been pointed out that the proposal implies the creation of division manager positions for the divisions of Marine Safety, Parking and Camping, Maintenance, and Support which would incur an additional expense for each new position. This would include promotion of a Lieutenant to Marine Safety Division Chief, a Marine Safety Officer II being promoted to Lieutenant, the Parking/Camping Supervisor becoming the Parking Manager, the Beach Operations Supervisor becoming the Maintenance Manager, and the creation of a Support Manager. The total extra cost for creating this new staffing structure in the proposed Beach Services Department is estimated at$198,286 -$231,112. The survey of other jurisdictions with a major responsibility for providing ocean lifeguard service for mil- lions of visitors per year indicates that the trend is toward placing this service in either the fire department or a community services/parks and recreation department, not as a standalone department, with or with- out other beach service functions. 19 poge £`itv(?f Ru1dingtoti Beach Su ary Advantages: 1. Potential of a department head with a marine safety background; 2. Beach Services would have a department to advocate the Department's budget needs 16; and 3. Beach Services resource and other needs would not be screened by a non-safety depart- ment head. Disadvantages: 1. The proposal would result in more cost to the City; 2. This option would split one department into two departments which is counter to the "new normal" of municipal finance of flattening and streamlining city organizations; 3. To avoid creating a second department by merging Recreation, Human and Cultural Services with the Library would not be functionally successful and would likely create a morale prob- lem among affected employees; 4. This proposed option would have a negative impact on the morale of employees represented by MEA; 5. The trend in other jurisdictions is to merge marine safety with either fire or community servic- es/recreation and parks; with beach maintenance and parking merged with public works and police; and 6. Marine Safety staffing needs do not seem to be damaged by being part of Community Ser- vices any more than if they were a separate department like Beach Services. Mer er with the Police Depart ent This proposal would be to merge Marine Safety as a separate division within the Police Department. It would leave the Recreation, Human and Cultural Division and other beach service divisions as either a separate small department or looking for a home with another department like the Library. In considering the advantages of this proposal MSMA indicates that among the remaining organizational alternatives, this would be the preferred option if a separate Marine Safety Department or Beach Services Department were not created. The perceived advantage of the Police Department is that the marine safe- ty services would be overseen by a department head with a public safety background. They see a similarity in the rank structure, viewing the Marine Safety Lieutenant as equivalent to a Police Lieutenant, a Marine Safety Officer II equivalent to a Police Sergeant, and a Marine Safety Officer I equivalent to a Police Officer. While this is not a classification and compensation study, it should be pointed out that there is a compensation difference of approximately $47,000 between a Police Lieute- nant ($148,116) and a Marine Safety Lieutenant($100,896). Further, the current staffing of marine safety includes nine Marine Safety Officer Ils, and no Marine Safety Officer Is. So, using the rank equivalency of the Police Department, Marine Safety is currently staffed with three Lieutenants and 9 Sergeants. Another advantage that is presented by MSMA is that lifeguards and police work together in enforcing the law. Police patrol individually or in pairs as do lifeguards. The lifeguards have limited law enforcement au- thority and mostly issue citations and warnings. They also jointly patrol with police on the beach and they assist each other with crowd control depending on the incident. MSMA also sees being located in the Police Department as being an opportunity to become part of a public safety department with a public safety director, but not having the level of oversight that might oc- 16 The Analysis Chapter questions whether this is an advantage to this organizational alternative since Marine Safety apparently has not fared worse than Police or Fire in the allocation of staff resources. Cite g111tnatin lon Beach cur in the Fire Department. In other words, it is perceived that there would be less of a chance that marine safety operations would be modified if part of the Police Department. There is also the perception that Marine Safety would be protected from reductions in resource allocation. There is no guarantee that this will occur, however. The disadvantages of merging with the Police Department are several. First, there is the likelihood that over time the cost of staffing Marine Safety will increase if their ranks are merged with Police and the Ma- rine Safety staff receives a corresponding increase in compensation. For example, if the three Marine Safety Lieutenants became regular police lieutenants the increased cost would be $141,000 annually. In addition, there could be the cost of staff time revamping the Marine Safety policies and procedures to mesh with those in the Police Department, although that likely would be handled internally without a direct budget increase in the Department. Second, while there are some similarities in the Marine Safety mission compared to Police, this is not a direct match since Lifeguards are not primarily law enforcement officers but are focused more on rescues and medical aid. Third, there is a risk that Marine Safety could suffer budget and staffing reductions since they will be part of a larger public safety department which has broader and more diverse priorities and goals. Fourth, while there is a reluctant willingness by Police management to assume oversight of marine ser- vices, and while the police union does not oppose such a merger, Police management is not receptive to accepting Marine Safety into the Police Department. Fifth, there will not be as much operational oversight of Marine Safety in Police compared to Fire. This may be perceived as an advantage by the lifeguards, but as a disadvantage by management who want to ensure that all city operations have consistent oversight that encourages appropriate responsibility and accountability. This does not mean that there would be insufficient supervision of this function in the Po- lice Department, but that there could be more oversight over the specifics of Marine Safety operations in the Fire Department due to the common functions between Fire and Marine Safety of rescue and medical aid. Sixth, the practice of other beach jurisdictions is to provide marine safety services through the fire or community services/recreation and parks departments. The only California city where the police depart- ment oversees ocean lifeguard service is the small City of Capitola near Santa Cruz. Su ary Advantages: 1. Department head with public safety background; 2. Some similarity in rank structure; 3. Some similarity in patrol operations; 4. Less oversight compared to the Fire Department; and 5. Perceived protection in the allocation of resources. Disadvantages: 1. Increased cost; 2. There is greater similarity in the missions of other departments as described in the other or- ganizational options; 3. Marine Safety assumes a greater risk of further budget reductions as a small operational unit in a larger public safety department; 4. Police management is willing but not receptive to provide oversight to Marine Safety; 5. Better operational oversight can be provided if Marine Safety is part of either the Fire or Community Services Department; C.aty cif IIU170kfz Ion Beach 6. Other jurisdictions who have evaluated this issue have found that lifeguard service can be better provided in other organizational alignments such as Fire or Community Services than with merger with a police department; and 7. Either a smaller Community Services Department would be left, or an ineffective merger with the Library would be created. In the former case, this option would reverse the trend among cities to flatten and streamline their operations. Mer er with the Fire Depart ent There was significant discussion about moving Marine Safety into the Fire Department in 2011. In fact, as an element of the City's 2011 Strategic Plan, the Deputy City Manager and Fire Chief were assigned a strategic plan objective to provide a report to the City Council via the City Manager evaluating the as- signment of Marine Safety to the Fire Chief." In response, the MSMA wrote: "The MSMA believes that Marine Safety services in Huntington Beach would continue to be delivered at the highest possible level in the Fire Department if: 1. The Marine Safety Division remains a division in the Fire Department. 2. The Marine Safety Division retains all Marine Safety positions. 3. The Marine Safety Division job titles change to appropriately align with similar positions in the Fire Department."'$ Attached to this letter was a document entitled "MSMA Title Change Rationale," which argued that if Ma- rine Safety merged with Fire the title of Marine Safety Lieutenant should be changed to Marine Safety Section Chief or Battalion Chief, and that the Marine Safety Officer II should be changed to Marine Safety Captain. This merger did not occur, since the City was going through a number of other significant changes due to major budget constraints and downsizing. The merger was put on hold while other budget issues were addressed. The advantages to merging Marine Safety with the Fire Department include having a public safety direc- tor as a department head, an objective of MSMA. Second, the mission of Marine Safety and Fire seem more compatible than any other department. In terms of activity level both Marine Safety and Fire spend a significant amount of time and resources on rescues and medical aid. Third, there could be better oversight of the Marine Safety Division stressing responsibility and accounta- bility. Fourth, after evaluating their own individual operations, most beach cities serving a large number of visi- tors have decided to place the marine safety function in the fire department. This function was moved from recreation to the fire department in San Diego, from a standalone department to the fire department in Newport Beach, from the harbor department to the fire department in Oceanside, and from parks, recreation, and marinas to the fire department in Long Beach. These moves were made in the mid-1990s except for Oceanside which made the change in 2010. Fifth, some minor operational efficiencies are possible such as purchase of medical supplies. There is al- so the opportunity for joint training and for continuing education related to emergency medical technician (EMT) certification. The disadvantages to Marine Safety merging with the Fire Department include the potential of extra ex- pense, especially if the job titles were changed and salary increases were negotiated as proposed in MSMA's July 14, 2011 letter cited previously. Other than that, even though the Marine Division Safety "City of Huntington Beach, 2011 Strategic Planning Objective, 10/11/2011. '8 Letter from the President, MSMA, July 14, 2011. u�--- _ 22�; Paige CiIV(# 1un0ic ton I2 each Chief would become part of the Fire Department management team, this does not mean that this or any other Marine Safety position would require additional pay. Also, MSMA makes the point that there would be additional expense in reformatting and revising the ma- rine safety policies and procedures to conform to those of the Fire Department. This expense, however, would be in the form of staff time, not as a direct additional expense. This work could be assigned as a secondary duty to which ever staff would be given this task by the Fire Chief, and spread over a period of months or years for completion. Additional budget expense would not be anticipated. Another point made by MSMA is that Fire management may be potentially intrusive into the oversight of the marine safety operations. As pointed in the Analysis Chapter, however, examples to support this con- cern were either dated, or did not accurately reflect the position of Fire management as it relates to the current issue of night patrols. Further, MSMA observes that Fire has a different rank structure and responds as teams, not as one or two person patrols. However, this difference seems to have been resolved in the jurisdictions which have merged marine safety with fire, which constitutes the majority of jurisdictions surveyed. A definite disadvantage, as in the Police Department, is that Marine Safety assumes a greater risk of los- ing budgeted resources since it will be a small organizational unit within a larger public safety department. There will be competing demands for these resources within the Fire Department, and how marine safety will fare within this environment is open to speculation. Even though the fire union is concerned that Ma- rine Safety will reduce funds available for Fire Operations with Marine Safety in the Fire Department, this does not mean that Marine Safety would avoid the "budget axe" if across-the-board budget reductions were required. Fifth, a smaller Community Services Department would remain after such a merger. An option would be to merge what is left of Community Services with the Library, which would be ineffective and is not rec- ommended. SU ary Advantages: 1. Leadership of a public safety director would be provided; 2. Marine Safety and Fire have the most common mission between departments than any other alternatives; 3. Better oversight of the Marine Safety function stressing responsibility and accountability would be provided; 4. The majority of beach communities which serve large numbers of visitors and have evaluated the best organizational location of marine safety services have concluded that these services would best be provided in the fire department; and 5. There would be minor cost savings related to purchasing and training. Disadvantages: 1. Potential that Marine Safety assumes a greater risk of further budget reductions as a small operational unit in a larger public safety department; 2. The fire union is not as receptive of Marine Safety being located in the Fire Department com- pared to the police union in accepting them into the Police Department; and 3. A smaller Community Services Department will be created, or an ineffective merger with the Library will be created. Co unity Services Depart ent Cih'f?fHunliflgtojl Beach The final option is for the Marine Safety Division to stay in the Community Services Department. This is opposed by MSMA since they desire to either be part of a standalone department or merged with a public safety department. There are several advantages of retaining the status quo. One is that there were would be no additional cost compared to some of the other reorganizational alternatives discussed. Further, there would not be any potential "salary creep" as a result of the possible transition to new job titles in the public safety de- partments, like Marine Safety Lieutenant to Police Lieutenant or Battalion Chief. As a result, future addi- tional salary expense would be avoided. Second, a larger department will not be split into two smaller departments as with the other organizational options. This would then avoid developing a less efficient organizational structure for the City. Third, Marine Safety would avoid being a small unit in a large public safety department with the corres- ponding negative impact this might have on their operating budget. This is because the public safety de- partments have other priorities which would compete with Marine Safety needs. While Marine Safety lost some resources through the budget process while in Community Services, so have all other City opera- tions including Police and Fire. This report finds that Marine Safety did not fare any worse than the two public safety departments in terms of staffing allocation. Further, Marine Safety has benefitted from the construction of important capital projects while part of Community Safety. Fourth, as with Police and Fire, there is a somewhat common mission between Marine Safety and the rest of Community Services. The entire Department has a focus on the provision of leisure services, with the beach and related campgrounds adding to the recreational experience for those visiting Huntington Beach. This likely was the rationale a number of years ago for placing Marine Safety in Community Ser- vices in the first place. Fifth, the morale issues expressed by MEA regarding the creation of either a Marine Safety or Beach Services Department would be avoided. Sixth, there would not be an opportunity for the negotiation of title changes and salary increases if there is a merger with either Police or Fire as has occurred in other cities. There are also several disadvantages of maintaining the status quo. First, there is the perceived lack of leadership for Marine Safety with the Community Services Director not having a public safety back- ground, when that position is ultimately filled. This is viewed as being managed by someone who does not fully appreciate the needs of Marine Safety, who in turn "screens out' needed resource requests or strategic planning objectives, even though the Analysis Chapter shows that Marine Safety did not fare any worse than Police or Fire in maintaining staffing resources. Access to the highest levels of city admin- istration was expressed as a concern, although a Deputy City Manager has been the de facto department head for the past two years. Second, this option is the least favored by MSMA. While "rank-and-file" employees do not supplant the City Manager and the City Council in deciding how a City should be organized, there definitely would be a morale issue among marine safety employees if the status quo is maintained. On the other hand, and as previously mentioned, there would be a morale issue among the Community Services Department em- ployees represented by MEA if standalone departments were created for the marine safety function. Third, most jurisdictions serving beaches with a large number of visitors place marine safety in the fire department rather than in community services/recreation and parks. SU aiy Advantages 1. No additional cost; 2. Additional salary expense associated with some of the other options would be avoided; 3. Increasing the number of City departments would be avoided; Cite cif 11nnlinhlon Peacli 4. Marine Safety would likely have a louder voice regarding resource allocation matters in a smaller department like Community Services, compared to the two larger public safety de- partments; 5. There is some commonality in mission between Marine Services and Community Services, although not to the same extent as with the Fire Department; 6. There would not be the need to adjust job titles or rank structure; and 7. Potential morale issues among MEA employees would be avoided. Disadvantages: 1. There is a perceived lack of a departmental leader without a public safety background; 2. Potential morale issues among marine safety employees; and 3. Most comparable jurisdictions favor fire rather than community services in providing marine safety services. Conclusions As can be seen from this summary discussion of the five organizational alternatives for providing marine safety services there are pros and cons for each option. It appears, however, that the two best options are either preserving the status quo and maintaining the Marine Safety Division in the Community Servic- es Department, or merging Marine Safety with the Fire Department. The first two options involve creating a standalone department would create two small departments from a larger department, and lead to an overall City organization that is less streamlined. In terms of current values and criteria for analyzing municipal organizations, this is a step backward rather than a step for- ward. Regarding the Police Department its overall mission is not as inclusive with Marine Safety as is Fire or Community Services. The lack of enthusiasm by department management to assume oversight of this function is not the best foundation for a satisfactory merger. Merging Marine Safety with Fire would place a public safety function with a public safety department which has with a focus on medical assistance and rescues. There would be no additional cost. There also would be no additional expense in maintaining the status quo, but there would be a continued morale is- sue in the Marine Safety Division. Therefore, it is recommended that the City either maintain the status quo, or merge Marine Safety with the Fire Department. If the decision is made to merge Marine Safety with Fire, it is suggested that pre-merger meetings be conducted to clarify the role and intent of the Fire Department in overseeing these services. The concerns expressed by MSMA should be fully addressed in order to develop trust that marine safety services would not be degraded. If it is decided that the status quo should be maintained, the marine safety employees should be fully informed about current and future meetings with the City Manager which are addressing many of the concerns raised by MSMA related to resource allocation.19 19 Concerns were expressed to justify organizational change, but were business practice issues unrelated to this or- ganizational study. If viewed appropriate by city management, there are three suggestions which are offered for con- sideration.These suggestions are: 1. It was mentioned by the Marine Safety Division Chief that permits, such as film permits, and other event decision- making, need to go up the chain of command through the Community Services Director to the City Manager's Of- fice, and then back to the Division Chief to determine if a permit should be approved. If this is viewed as a cum- bersome procedure, It is suggested that the Marine Safety Division Chief be tasked with preparing a proposal, along with support for that proposal,for processing permit submittals more efficiently. 2.A concern was expressed that the Marine Safety Division Chief does not have the authority to activate the Emer- gency Operations Center (EOC). While this procedural issue does not support a reorganization of the City, per- haps this issue could be evaluated by the City if deemed appropriate by the Police and Fire Chiefs. If so, it is sug- C'ily,oJ'Huntinbton Beach Addendum "Organizational Options, Marine Safety Division, Community Services Department, City of Huntington Beach" Response to a Comment Document Submitted by the Huntington Beach Marine Safety Management Association In connection with the study, "Organizational Options, Marine Safety Division, Community Services De- partment, City of Huntington Beach," ten pages of comments were offered Michael Bartlett, MSMA Presi- dent. This will respond to these comments, and perhaps in the process will provide further clarity and un- derstanding to the content of the original report. It should be noted that this report took an objective view in preparing an analysis and making recommen- dations regarding where Marine Safety should be located in the City of Huntington Beach organization. The purpose of the report was not to advocate any particular position, but to provide an analysis of five options for placing Marine Safety in the City's organizational structure. Since the"comment document" was not in a format where the consultant could directly include responses on that document, it will be necessary to summarize the points made by MSMA in presenting responses to these comments. Analysis At the beginning of the MSMA comments there is an ANALYSIS section which contains two major points. These are: 1. "The California State Lifeguards, the largest stand-alone lifeguard operation in the world, conspicuously was omitted from the Goss Report." RESPONSE: The focus of the study is to examine organizational options for Marine Safety in a city setting, not a state or federal setting. As a result, data from cities, not the state or federal govern- ment,was obtained to determine how Marine Safety services were organized in other cities. In ad- dition, it is important to note that the California State Lifeguards are not a stand-alone operation. They operate under the auspices of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2. "The most important metric for determining fiscal dollar allocation by department was also conspicuously omitted." This metric was the respective budgets for Police, Fire, Community Services and Marine Safety. RESPONSE: It is difficult to compare the budgets for Fire, Police, Community Services and Marine Safety. This is because there are diverse elements in each of these budgets that make an apples- to-apples comparison of each of these functions difficult and not very informative. In fact, the C"it1-of Huntington Beach City's Budget Manager in reviewing the MSMA 10-year budget data indicates that it "...does not compare the same budget types from year to year; for example, some fiscal years have revised budget(numbers), other years have(the) adopted budget, and others use actual data." In determining whether or not MSMA suffered in the allocation of resources through the budget process, a comparison of staff allocation for Police, Fire, Community Services and Marine Safety was used instead. This is because, as a rule of thumb, staff costs make up 75-80% of a city budg- et. For functions that are labor intensive like Marine Safety, it is probably as fair a metric as is available to determine how Marine Safety fared in the resource allocation process compared to Police and Fire. It should be noted that MSMA also used the allocation of staff resources in sup- port of their arguments. Conclusion 1. MSMA in their CONCLUSION paragraph (p. 1) states, "With the factual errors, omissions of evidence and apparent bias, the conclusions of this study are invalid." RESPONSE: The author of the study respectfully disagrees with this conclusion as will be dis- cussed in the following paragraphs of this response. Factual Errors Under a section entitled, "Factual Errors," there are several points made by MSMA. They are: A. "The Goss Report makes a crucial error here relying on an "unidentified" source. The Marine Safety staffing cut was 15% not 7% and disproves his premise that Marine Safety has"fared well" compared to Police and Fire. RESPONSE: The "Unidentified" source as stated in the report was the "Finance Department." Since the consultant received conflicting input over the number of staff reduced in Marine Safety over the ten year period of 2001/02 — 2010/11, both pieces of information was provided to the reader and included in the report. MSMA argues that the reduction over this time period was 15 to 13 (15%), and the budget manager contends that it is 14 to 13 (7%). It should be pointed out that per the MSMA data, the reduction of 15 to 14 occurred in 2002-03 which is clearly not a recent re- duction in staff. It was pointed out that the Police Department more recently lost 12% of their po- lice officer positions through defunding. Realizing that it is difficult to compare the loss of one position in a small operation vs. a number of positions is a much larger operation like Police, it was concluded on page 8 that "...the reduction percentage-wise in sworn public safety officers is roughly comparable between Police and Marine Safety." Another problem with the MSMA data is that it is dated, not reflecting budget and staffing information for the past two fiscal years. B. MSMA states, "Page I, Table II-C (Annual Beach Visitors) shows a decline in estimated beach visitors for 2009-11. We believe these figures did not include Pier Plaza Parking attendance due to a change in parking staff supervisors and reporting procedures." RESPONSE: The information contained in the U. S. Lifesaving Association website which was used by this report is self-reported annually by each individual jurisdiction. Whether there are er- rors in this reporting is up to each agency to correct, as appropriate. For this report the consultant used the best available data reported by an independent source which is based on data supplied by the City of Huntington Beach. C. MSMA has no objection to "full level background investigations." RESPONSE: It is uncertain why this acknowledgement regarding full background investigations by MSMA is viewed as a "factual error." � � 2 ! Page City(#f Huntingnon Beach D. MSMA states, "Page 11 cites `lifeguards have limited law enforcement authority," but the Goss Report fails to recognize that Marine Safety Officers are Peace Officers with a significantly higher level of authority compared to Lifeguard staff." RESPONSE: It should be clear from the plain reading of the statement in the report, "lifeguards have limited law enforcement authority," that lifeguards with this level of law enforcement authori- ty is at a higher level of authority than a normal ocean lifeguard. It is also clear that Marine Safety Officers have limited law enforcement authority compared to regular police officers. E. MSMA states, "Page 11 inaccurately cites remarks from a retired Fire Captain." The MSMA statement in their letter goes into more detail regarding the comments of the retired Fire Captain. RESPONSE: The statement attributed to the retired Fire Captain is based on an interview with a member of MSMA who did not go into the further detail presented in MSMA's recent letter. ut this part of MSMA's comment letter misses the point of the report which is the opinion of a retired Fire Captain does not reflect the position of the current management of the Fire Department. There- fore, these statements from the retired Fire Captain should not be of concern to MSMA and should not have a bearing on the issues discussed on this report. F. MSMA states, "Pages 18 and 20, Disadvantage#5 is factually incorrect. There has not been any trend anywhere to merge Ocean Lifeguards with Community Services for decades." RESPONSE: The report is referring to "historic" trends not "current" trends. Disadvantage #5 states, "The trend in other jurisdictions which have evaluated this issue is to merge marine safety either with fire or community services." This evaluation by other jurisdictions could have been conducted recently or decades ago. In any event, the merger of Marine Safety with either fire or community services is supported by Tables III-A and III- . As the text on p. 17 of the report sum- marizes, "The more common practice is to place this function (marine safety) in a fire department ( jurisdictions)or recreation departments (4 jurisdictions). G. MSMA states, "Page 22 should reflect that the San Diego Lifeguards are currently working to get out of the Fire Department and become a stand-alone department." RESPONSE: To be objective the consultant could only accurately report the current organization structure of the San Diego Fire Department, not speculate how it may change. Currently, the life- guard operation is placed in the San Diego Fire Department. H. MSMA is concerned with the historical context of the report, arguing that over 30 years ago Parks and Recreation was added to Harbors and Beaches, creating the Harbors and Beaches, Recreation and Parks Department, rather than Harbors and Beaches being added to Recreation and Parks. RESPONSE: It may be difficult to determine if Parks and Recreation was added to Harbors and eaches, or visa versa. Perhaps better language would have been to say that Harbors and each- es and Parks and Recreation were merged rather than to say that Marine Safety was placed into Parks and Recreation. The point remains the same, however, which is that during the time frame the entire department (now titled Community Services) was created, professionals in recreation, aquatics, ocean safety, camping, etc.would link these functions together into one department. I. MSMA points to minor data discrepancies or typos in the data for Table III-B. RESPONSE: These corrections are accepted. J. MSMA asks why drowning deaths were not examined compared to the number of full-time staff at these departments of other cities. RESPONSE: While consideration of drowning deaths is important information to be considered, it was concluded that the availability of staff resources were a better measure in comparing the re- spective allocation of resources among other beach cities in Southern California. Omissions of Evidence 3 : Page City of'Huntington Beach A. MSMA argues that "the Goss report excludes the 10-year Budget Analysis" document which clearly illustrates the Marine Safety's fiscal allocation has not been commensurate with Police or Fire. RESPONSE: Please see the response above in paragraph#2 under the ANALYSIS section. B. MSMA contends, "The Goss Report fails to mention the provided facts related to the increased beach related fatalities and death by drowning," projecting an "alarming trend" in this type of data from 2005-2009. RESPONSE: If there was an "alarming trend" projected from 2005-2009, data supporting that trend should now be available. The consultant did not feel comfortable citing "old" data in this report, and no updated data was provided. C. MSMA is concerned that in listing advantages for a Beach Services Department or a stand-alone Marine Safety Department, advantages were not listed such as direct access to the City Manag- er, elimination of filtering, and a greater emphasis on life safety issues. Other advantages cited by MSMA is the elimination of dysfunction with recreation leading marine safety and the improve- ment of morale for Marine Safety Management if this function were no longer in Community Ser- vices. RESPONSE: While perhaps not worded in the exact language preferred by MSMA, these advan- tages were listed in the report for both a Beach Services Department or a stand-alone Marine Safe- ty Department. One advantage listed was that a Beach Services Department or a Marine Safety Department would have a "department head to advocate the Department's budget needs," (direct access to the City Manager and a greater emphasis on life safety issues). Another stated advan- tage was that Marine Safety or Beach Services "requests for resource and other needs would not be screened by a non-marine safety department head ("elimination of filtering"). Further, it is stated on p. 17 of the report, "A final advantage is that this would improve the morale of Marine Safety Officers..." D. MSMA observes, "The Goss Report makes many references to the "government trend toward streamlining and flattening the organization," but the report fails to explain how governments are doing that." Also, it is mentioned that the consultant commented that the current trend in govern- ment is to"merge" library with recreation services. Why does this report fail to mention this? RESPONSE: The reference to the trend toward cities streamlining and flattening the organization was mentioned as a "given." It is a technique which has been used by cities throughout California during the past few years in light of current fiscal challenges. Therefore, specific examples of this point were not given. However, the consultant's study for Huntington Beach in combining most of the functions of the Treasurer's Office with the Finance Department is an example of streamlining and flattening an organization. In another example, the consultant just a released a report for the City of Santa Rosa which recommends that the Facilities Maintenance Division be moved from the Recreation and Parks Department to the Transportation and Public Works Department, another example of flattening the organization. In other reports prepared by the consultant other consoli- dation of functions has been recommended. The point is that the trend state-wide is to consoli- date functions, not create additional "specialty" departments. It is not a general trend that the recreation and library functions are merging, but it is true that this arrangement can be considered on a case-by-case basis. This is based on the skill sets of the af- fected in-house managers. The consultant made such a recommendation in Sunnyvale, which successfully merged these two leisure service functions. However, as stated on p. 17 of the re- port, "...the skill sets of those currently overseeing Community Services and the Library will not make such a transition feasible. Department heads interviewed outside of these two department share that conclusion." So the library/recreation merger option was considered, but is not rec- ommended in this case. E. MSMA mentions, "The Goss Report fails to include: parking revenue facts that prove a steady in- crease in beach parking revenue supporting MSMA's arguments of increase service demand; 4 ' Page C'iry of Huntington Beuch fails to mention the doubling of medical calls over the decade; fails to mention the significant in- crease in the number of special events..." RESPONSE: The notion that increased parking revenue supports increased service demand is not verified by the self-reported beach attendance figures through 2011 reported on the U. S. Lifesav- ing Association website. It is clear from the Association's figures that attendance has fluctuated in Huntington Beach during the past several years with a peak experienced during the period 2005 - 2009, but with 2011 about the same as it was in 2002 - 2004. (See Tables II-C and II-B in the re- port). Regarding the doubling of medical calls, it has already been mentioned that the consultant consi- dered staffing comparisons with other agencies as a better metric for determining comparable practice among city beach agencies. Regarding the increase in special events,there appears to be an increase but it is doubtful that this would justify an increase in full-time Marine Safety staffing given the City's financial challenges. F. MSMA observes that the "Comparison with the Fire Department on Page 9 fails to mention that Fire Station #6 is the City's newest fire station, opening in 2000 (and that) ...the Fire Department expanded and added a number of personnel to their staff, and then later added more with the ambulance operation. At the same time, Community Services cut beach services and Marine Safety Staff." RESPONSE: It appears that MSMA is more concerned about other departments receiving benefits a number of years ago (new fire station in 2000), and a 10-year staff analysis ending in 2010-11, rather than current staffing/resource allocation issues. As pointed out on p. 9 of the report, "Dur- ing the past five years...the (Fire) Department's full-time staffing has been reduced from 185 to 176.5" per the City Fire Chief. Regarding Fire Station #6 (Edwards), it was actually opened by moving a second fire engine and crew from Fire Station #1 (Gothard), who also cross-staffed the Hazardous Materials Unit, over to the new facility. This resulted in only one engine crew remaining at Fire Station #1 which is the same as it is today. G. MSMA was concerned that the report on p. 15 of the report did not elaborate on the success of the cities of Laguna Beach and Seal Beach which have stand-alone lifeguard departments. RESPONSE: The purpose of the report was not to make the case MSMA is advocating, but, in Chapter III, to objectively provide the administrators and policy makers with information about the practice of other California beach cities/counties in where they place the marine safety function. As a matter of being equitable in its presentation, the report also did not elaborate on the success of those cities which place marine safety in a fire department or recreation department. Apparent Bias Concerns about apparent bias in the report were expressed by MSMA as follows: A. MSMA states, "The Police Union was not contacted for input or interviews during the study pe- riod. However, Mr. Goss had dinner with the fire staff...during this time period. After learning the Fire Union was contacted, the POA President contacted Mr. Goss... Failure to initially include the Police Union illustrates an apparent bias against the Police option." RESPONSE: When the study began, it was suggested by management staff that the consultant in- terview the Fire Union President since the possible merger of Marine Safety with Fire had been considered previously. So the Fire Union was not receiving preferential treatment since it was the only union that had already taken a position on the merger issue. As it turned, not only did the consultant speak to a member of the POA Board (who, parenthetically, is no longer President), but the Presidents of the Municipal Employees Association (MEA) and the Municipal Employees Or- ganization (MEO). The latter two labor organizations indicated a desire to provide input into the Pine City ofHus7tington Beach study, which they did. As a result, the views of representatives of POA, MEA and MEO were all re- flected in the report. There was no bias for or against the Police option or any other option. B. MSMA indicates, "Page 7 Table II-B is irrelevant to the Marine Safety Study." RESPONSE: This table was a corrected version of one that was first developed by the City's Hu- man Resource Department. It gives a broad view of where the marine safety function is organized in 22 California beach jurisdictions. The reader must determine whether this information is rele- vant or not in their evaluation the issues raised by the report. C. MSMA states, "Mr. Goss misrepresents the MSMA's concerns relating to supervision under Po- lice and Fire..." and then asserts their case that Marine Safety should be merged with Police ra- ther than Fire. They state, "The study fails to address these issues that clearly demonstrate an advantage to merge with Police." RESPONSE: The advantages contained in the report concerning Marine Safety merging with the Police Department were based on the interviews conducted during the study. MSMA lists several activities that would be beneficial to Marine Safety including supervision and training from the Police Department. While these would be useful, Marine Safety Officers only have limited law enforcement authority. Their function is more in line with the Fire Department in terms of rescues, injuries and medical aid. But as the report points out, "...while (a representative of the POA Board) ...does not oppose such a merger" (with Police), police management is less than enthusiastic in accepting Marine Safety into the Police Department. Of the 22 California beach cities which provide ocean lifeguard service and have studied the organization structure which best suits the provision of marine safety service in their jurisdiction, only the small City of Capitola has located this function in the Police Department. D. MSMA disagrees that Fire and Community Services have a greater similarity in mission with Ma- rine Safety compared to the Police Department. Their view is that their mission is more similar to Police and Fire. RESPONSE: This point is acknowledged. Marine Safety is similar to Fire in terms of performing to rescues, and responding to injuries and medical aid. Marine Safety is similar to Community Ser- vices in the sense that it oversees a large recreation activity, described by Community Services staff as the biggest "park" in the City. There are similarities, but these two departments are ob- viously totally different in their function, perspective and culture. E. MSMA indicates that they do not have a concern with oversight, but would be "...concerned if another department tried to change the highly successful delivery of Marine Safety services in Huntington Beach." MSMA believes that "the time required to make... (policy and procedures) changes(in Fire) would likely impact Marine Safety operations due to limited management staff." RESPONSE: The conclusion offered by MSMA about a negative impact on Marine Safety opera- tions if this function is merged with Fire is only speculation. But their general concern is an im- portant one. That is why the report recommends on p. 25 that, if merger with the Fire Department is considered, pre-merger meetings be held to clarify the role of the Fire Department overseeing Marine Safety services, and to fully address "the concerns expressed by MSMA." F. MSMA feels that the costing summary for the different options was inconsistent with costs added for a Community Services Director for the Beach Services and stand-alone options. Plus they ob- jected to adding $92,000 for a clerical position which was not in their option. RESPONSE: MSMA is correct that the cost for a Community Services Director should be added to the other options other than the stand-alone alternative. Beginning with the Beach Services De- partment which MSMA mistakenly assumed included this cost, this option's total cost will in- crease from $198,286 - $213,122 to $363,286 - $411,112. The Police and Fire options would be $165,000 -$180,000 to reflect funding the Community Services Director position. Clerical expense was included for the stand-alone department and the Beach Services options since clerical support is necessary for a department's operation. The thought is that under the status quo there is clerical support for Marine Safety, and there will be clerical support in either 6 1 Page City,of'Huntin ton Beach Police or Fire. It is unrealistic to assume that the stand-alone or Beach Services options should ignore a crucial support position in establishing a proposed new City department. In evaluating creation of a new department consideration of all potential staffing costs should be contained within the report. G. MSMA cites their perceived advantages for a Beach Services or stand-alone department. RESPONSE: As pointed out earlier in this addendum these advantages were mentioned in the re- port, although using different language than MSMA. H. MSMA objects to the language on p. 24 of the report that there is a "somewhat common mission between Marine Safety and the rest of Community Services." The report comments that Commu- nity Services "has a focus on the provision of leisure services, with the beach and related campgrounds adding to the recreational experience for those visiting Huntington Beach. This like- ly was the rationale a number of years ago" for merger of parks and recreation with Marine Safe- ty. RESPONSE: This statement is a historical observation about why Marine Safety and recreation likely was merged over 30 years ago. The consultant has been a California City Manager begin- ning in 1973 and understands the perspective from that time period why functions like Marine Safety and certain recreation functions were placed in the same department. The statement was not meant as disrespect to Marine Safety but only to offer a historical perspective why ocean life- guards may have been located organizationally with parks and recreation. I. MSMA mentions that they have not asked for pay increases as part of a change in department status, but that the report"...correctly points out that Marine Safety titles may need to be changed to accurately reflect rank with the organization (whether it be police or fire)." RESPONSE: To the consultant's knowledge, pay raises have not been requested by MSMA. How- ever, title changes could result in a classification and compensation study which could signifi- cantly increase the pay for all members of MSMA. J. MSMA views Table III-A and III-B, showing the comparable practices of other California beach ci- ties as demonstrating a bias by omitting reference to California State Lifeguards. RESPONSE: Please see the response to this issue in item#1, page#1 of this document. K. MSMA apparently perceives that "...the ridiculous term "Leisure Services Department" is (de- signed)to kill any prospects for merging library with recreation..." RESPONSE: The concept of a leisure services department from a historical or academic perspec- tive needs to be understood. Before the term Community Services became the popular name that included various recreation functions, recreation managers were promoting the term, `Leisure Services.' This term is still used in dozens of educational institutions across the country today. In this case, this is a helpful term since it does cover both library and recreation activities. This his- torical information is based on the consultant working for or with cities and counties for over 50 years. L. MSMA questions the objectivity of the report because of the consultant's prior working relation- ship with the Huntington Beach City Manager. RESPONSE: The consultant prepared two professional reports for the City of San Bernardino when the Huntington Beach City Manager worked there, and two for Huntington Beach. One Hun- tington Beach study was related to the Sunset Beach annexation and the other to the organiza- tion, management and business practices of the Finance Department and the Office of Treasurer. It is presumed that the objectivity, knowledge and professionalism reflected in those reports pro- vided the confidence that the current report would be prepared at the same standards. Invalid Conclusions City c f Huntington Beach The MSMA lists seven items which they feel reflected invalid conclusions in the report. They appear in- stead to be an effort to present a case to support their desire to create a stand-alone department of either Marine Safety or Beach Services. These are discussed in the following paragraphs. A. MSMA argues that they fared better when they had direct access during the past two years to the City Manager's Office because they had direct access to the Assistant City Manager. Therefore, it is reasoned, they should be a stand-alone department. RESPONSE: It is more likely that it would have made no difference in the allocation of resources to Marine Safety whether they were part of another department or as a stand-alone department. The staff cuts (one position each year) that concern MSMA according to their chart occurred in 2002-03 and 2009-10. There have been no further staff reductions to Marine Safety whether Com- munity Services was managed by the Deputy City Manager or someone else. It is understandable, however, that Marine Safety perceives that during the time the Deputy City Manager oversaw Community Services, this arrangement was beneficial to Marine Safety. B. MSMA objects to the conclusion that they fared well while part of Community Services because of the construction of a number of capital projects benefitting Marine Safety. RESPONSE: MSMA makes a good point that the improvements on the beach were made while they were part of Community Services, not because of Community Services. On the point of the many new facilities constructed for the use of Marine Safety,the report states on p. 6: "It should be noted that in the area of capital improvements, which normally have a different fund- ing source than operations, Marine Safety has seen many improvements as part of redevelopment of the beach area, including a new Marine Safety Headquarters, a new Tower Zero, and a Junior Lifeguard Headquarters. They have also obtained improved beach vehicles through outside spon- sorships." It should be noted that these capital projects were not cited as MSMA mistakenly asserts to sup- port the notion that Marine Safety did not fare any worse than Police and Fire in the allocation re- sources. That conclusion was based on the allocation of staff resources among Marine Safety, Po- lice and Fire. C. MSMA basically makes the same point as in the previous paragraph. RESPONSE: See the previous response. D. MSMA still disagrees that the Interim Community Services Director second goal submitted as part of the strategic planning process does not fully contain the specific objectives desired to be stated as part of this process by Marine Safety. RESPONSE: The report respectfully disagrees with MSMA's analysis. The Interim Director posited general goals which seem to embrace Marine Safety's specific objectives. Additionally, MSMA ap- parently has no objection or comment regarding the report's analysis that the Interim Director's first goal encompassed Marine Safety's specific objectives. E. MSMA presents an argument that their relationship with Community Services is "dysfunctional" and that their Department's Director should have a Marine Safety background. RESPONSE: The position of Community Services Director has not yet been filled. Ideally, this po- sition would have a full background in all of the functions of the Department: recreation, cultural, marine safety, beach and facility maintenance, parking, etc. Finding the "ideal" candidate that has background in all of these functions is not always possible. F. MSMA asserts that a conclusion on p. 15 is invalid. In fact, they argue that the entire study is invalid, since information about the California State Lifeguards was not included in Chapter III. RESPONSE: Again, please see the response to this point on item #1, p.#1. G. MSMA argues that a stand-alone Marine Safety Department would not be too small since it would be larger than six existing departments in terms of resources and staff. Page Cite of Iluntinaton Beach RESPONSE: The so-called "departments" referenced by MSMA are really offices, such as the Of- fice of City Treasurer, City Clerk, City Attorney, City Manager, etc. In terms of "operating" depart- ments it is considered a "small department." Again, the trend in city government during the "new normal' of municipal finance is to combine and reduce the number of departments, not create new"specialty" departments. Summary As can be seen from this document, the report was factual, included evidence only pertinent to the issue of the proper placement of Marine Safety within the city organization, and was objective and professional in presenting its analysis and recommendations. It is hoped that this document is a useful supplement to the original report by addressing the concerns of MSMA. Huntington Beach Marine Safety Management Association April 24, 2013 SUMMARY The MSMA would like to provide input on the "Organizational Options for Marine Safety" report prepared by John Goss dated April 10, 2013, and we certainly appreciate the opportunity to partner with city management to determine a viable path assuring the highest level of quality life safety for our beach community. Although the Goss Report provides a fair introduction and purpose for the study, it is riddled with factual errors and doesn't deliver a fair and impartial analysis. More importantly, the analysis omitted key evidence that was presented to Mr. Goss. Instead, he used metrics that were incomplete and omitted the California State Lifeguards from the study. Second, he used examples such as building"a new Lifeguard Headquarters and Junior Guard facility" as a way to measure how Marine Safety has "fared" rather than using the appropriate fiscal allocation metric. Detailed City budget information was provided to Mr. Goss, yet he chose to ignore it. Basing his recommendations on incomplete and inappropriate metrics, the Goss Report's conclusions are invalid. ANALYSIS First, the California State Lifeguards, the largest standalone lifeguard operation in the world, conspicuously was omitted from the Goss Report. The California Agency Comparisons, used in two tables in Chapter III, does not include the California State Lifeguards. This agency operates using a police model with full time Lifeguards as Peace Officers who carry firearms. Bordering the City beach on both sides, State Lifeguards oversee their parking and maintenance staff similar to the proposed Beach Services Department. The state agency was listed on information provided to Mr. Goss but again omitted in this study. How can this obvious omission of evidence be justified as a comprehensive analysis? Second, the most important metric for determining fiscal dollar allocation by department was also conspicuously omitted. A "10-Year Budget Analysis" from FY 2001-2010 was also provided, but completely ignored. This single piece of evidence reveals the annual growth rate by department over the decade is Fire 5.1%, Police 4.2% and Marine Safety 2.7%. Mr. Goss suggested that Marine Safety "fared as well as police and fire"throughout his report. Why didn't he use the appropriate fiscal metric for which the majority of his redundant arguments are based? More specifically, the following pages will cite numerous examples of factual errors, omissions of evidence, an apparent bias, and invalid conclusions that are both weak and redundant. CONCLUSION With the factual errors, omissions of evidence, and apparent bias,the conclusions in this study are invalid. Based on this information, can a neutral party really trust the recommendations in this report? "Enhance and Maintain Public Safety" is a top priority and strategic goal for the City. The Marine Safety Chief needs direct access to the City Manager without filtering to address life safety issues and resource allocation. This can best be accomplished by forming a Beach Services Department or a standalone Marine Safety Department. 11Page The following sections cite numerous examples separated into four categories: I. Factual Errors, II. Omission of Evidence, III. Apparent Bias, and IV. Invalid Conclusions. I. Factual Errors A. Page 6 challenges our FT staffing numbers for FY 2001/02 based on an unidentified source in Finance. Mr. Goss contends our full time staff was 14, not 15, and purports that our reduction was 7%, not 15%. Let's count the staff for FY 2001/02: 1 Chief+4 LTs + I0 MSOs= 15 Those personnel were: 1 Chief(Seim), 4 LTs (Davidson, Beuerlein, Crow, Lindo), 10 MSOs (Bartlett, M., Bartlett, T., Baumgartner, Ching, Clarke, Dieterman, Karl, Panis, Reuter, and Weisser). See Page 11 Exhibit D FY 01/02, 02/03 and 03/04 Res. No. 2003-69 showing the LT position cut from 4 to 3. The Goss Report makes a crucial error here relying on an "unidentified" source. The Marine Safety staffing cut was 15% not 7% and disproves his premise that Marine Safety has "fared well". B. Page 8, Table II-C (Annual Beach Visitors) shows a decline in estimated beach visitors for 2009-I1. We believe these figures did not include Pier Plaza Parking attendance due to a change in parking staff supervisors and reporting procedures. If these numbers are accurate, then in a two-year period there were 4 deaths from drowning with 15.9 million visitors or 1 drowning per 3.975 million visitors. This is a 200% increase in the chance of drowning on our City Beach during this period. C. Page 11 cites a reference to "full level background investigations" for full time personnel like in the Police Department. The MSMA has no objection to this practice. D. Page 11 cites "lifeguards have limited law enforcement authority", but the Goss Report fails to recognize that Marine Safety Officers are Peace Officers with a significantly higher level of authority compared to Lifeguard staff. E. Page 11 inaccurately cites remarks from a retired fire captain. To clarify, the retired captain said that his idea would be to replace the Rescue Boats with PWCs (jet skis) by "staging one PWC at every other tower". We have 24 towers so we would have to purchase 10 more PWCs with trailers and gear. Then we would have to increase our daily staffing to include 12 PWC operators per day rather than the current one rescue boat operator per day. 2 1 P a g e F. Pages 18 and 20, Disadvantage #5 is factually incorrect. There has not been any trend anywhere to merge Ocean Lifeguards with Community Services for decades. To suggest otherwise is simply not true. G. Page 22 should reflect that the San Diego Lifeguards are currently working to get out of the Fire Department and become a standalone department. H. Page 24 states "rationale a number of years ago for placing Marine Safety in Community Services in the first place." The facts are: the history of the department reveals it started as the Lifeguard Department, changed to Harbors and Beaches Department, then added recreation to form Harbors and Beaches, Recreation and Parks Department. Then it became Community Services Department in 1981 when the library was added. Every Department transition had the Lifeguard Chief leading and directing as department head. Marine Safety was never added to Community Services. How did Mr. Goss fail in articulating these crucial, historical facts? I. Page 14, Table III-B had the following errors: o Attendance for Encinitas was 0 or unreported (not 1,434,008), and rescues were 1434 (not 125). o Imperial Beach rescues were 324 (not 124). o Los Angeles City rescues were 41 (not 42). J. Using the same 2011 data from the USLA website, minor and major medical aids were combined for a total number. Looking at major medical aids (requiring hospitalization or doctor follow-up), Huntington Beach was top two in the State with 657 major medical aids. Almost half of all medical aids treated by Huntington Beach Marine Safety were major medical aids which includes near drowning incidents! Why didn't Mr. Goss look at drowning deaths compared to the number of full time staff at these departments? Why didn't the Goss Report analyze the budget allocations comparably? One of our main arguments is the lack of adequate resources to handle the life safety demand highlighted by the increase in beach related fatalities and deaths by drowning. II. Omissions of Evidence A. The Goss Report excludes the "I 0-Year Budget Analysis" document which clearly illustrates that Marine Safety's fiscal allocation has not been commensurate with Police or Fire. The average annual growth rate over the decade was Fire 5.1%, Police 4.2% and Marine Safety 2.7% (See Page 12). This single metric evidence is the smoking gun that underscores 3 1 P a g e our arguments that the Marine Safety Chief needs direct access to the City Manager in addressing life safety issues and resource allocation. Suggesting that Marine Safety has fared equally well in comparison to Police and Fire is inaccurate. B. The Goss Report fails to mention the provided facts related to the increased beach related fatalities and death by drowning. In a 5-Year Period from 2005-09, there were 14 beach fatalities, 8 of those deaths were from drowning. If this alarming trend continues at this rate, Huntington Beach will have 28 fatalities, 16 of those deaths will be from drowning over the next decade. Shouldn't the Marine Safety Chief have direct access to the City Manager without filter to address life safety issues and resource allocation? C. The Goss Report lists Advantages for a Beach Services Department or standalone Marine Safety Department, but fails to include: direct access to City Manager, elimination of filtering, greater emphasis on life safety issues improvement and enhancement of public safety strategic goal of the City) elimination of dysfunction (currently a result of recreation leading safety), and improvement of morale for marine safety management and 140 ocean lifeguards and junior lifeguard instructors. D. The Goss Report makes many references to the "government trend toward streamlining and flattening the organization", but the report fails to explain how governments are doing that. MSMA believes that a Marine Safety Department would provide more efficient service delivery. Mr. Goss told MSMA that the current trend in government is to "merge" library with recreation services. Why does his report fail to mention this? E. The Goss Report fails to include: parking revenue facts that prove a steady increase in beach parking revenue supporting MSMA's arguments of increased service demand; fails to mention the doubling of medical calls over the decade; fails to mention the significant increase in the number of special events at the City Beach and the impacts on Marine Safety operations; and fails to mention the increase in beach fatalities, drowning and liability. All of these important issues were well documented in the MSMA Presentation where Mr. Goss received hard copies. F. Comparison with the Fire Department on Page 9 fails to mention that Fire Station 6, at 18591 Edwards Street is the City's "newest fire station, opening in 2000. Station 6 -Edwards personnel staff the Hazardous Materials Response Unit and a Paramedic Engine company" per the city website. The Fire Department expanded and added a number of personnel to their staff, then later added more with the ambulance operation. At the same time, Community Services (led by recreation) cut beach services and Marine Safety staff. 4 Page G. There were several opportunities on page 15 to elaborate on the operations of both the Laguna Beach Marine Safety Department and Seal Beach Lifeguard Department. But no time was spent evaluating the merits of their success. If contacted, both agencies will emphasize the value of a standalone department with a Marine Safety Chief having "direct access" to the City Manager. This direct access improves communication and eliminates filtering. Of the Lifeguard Agencies in Orange County, two are standalone departments, two are Community Services, one is law enforcement and one is Fire. III. Apparent Bias A. The Police Union was not contacted for input or interviews during the study period. However, Mr. Goss had dinner with the fire staff at the Lake Street Fire Station during this time period. After learning the Fire Union was contacted, the POA President contacted Mr. Goss, two days before the March 13 draft was completed. The failure to initially include the Police Union illustrates an apparent bias against the Police option. B. Page 7 Table II-B is irrelevant to the Marine Safety Study. This table should be replaced with See Page 13 Exhibit D - Annual Budget Res. No. 2000-90 showing 16.5 FT Marine Safety Positions(not 14). After all, it is a Marine Safety study and it is certainly relevant. C. Page 11 and Page 21, Mr. Goss misrepresents the MSMA's concerns relating to supervision under Police or Fire. To clarify, the MSMA believes we need more supervision and training as it relates to our law enforcement duties (including use of force) and seeks greater direction from Police Management on how we function in a supporting role. With nearly 30 bars in the downtown area, alcohol consumption and its effects on beach visitors continues to be a major factor in beach related injuries, rescues and fatalities, including drowning. Municipal ordinance enforcement, beach theft, lost and found property procedures, missing people, lewd conduct, crowd control, 10 PM beach curfew, ponga smuggling incidents, crowd control, closed area enforcement during special events and terrorism concerns are examples of an increased need for law enforcement training for Marine Safety Officers and Lifeguard staff under the direction of the Police Department. The study fails to address these issues that clearly demonstrate an advantage to merge with Police. Those advantages are: better oversight and supervision under the Police Department; increased law enforcement training and coordination; daily interaction and ongoing coordination with search and rescue operations utilizing police air assets(fire doesn't offer). And unlike Newport Beach, this City attracts a greater diversity of beach goers with its proximity to Beach Boulevard and appeal to the Inland Empire. Our beach parking facilities 5 1 P a g e are much larger than other municipalities and our beaches have denser crowd conditions, at times causing friction and tempers that demand a greater law enforcement emphasis over the fire model. D. Page 21, the Goss Report says that "there is greater similarity in the missions of other departments" over the Police Department. The clear inference is that Fire and Community Services are those other Departments. MSMA respectfully disagrees. Marine Safety is clearly most similar in mission to Police and Fire. E. Again, MSMA does not have a concern with oversight. On page 21,the Goss Report says that "there is greater similarity in the missions of other departments" over the Police Department. MSMA would be very concerned if another department tried to change the highly successful delivery of Marine Safety services in Huntington Beach. For 110 years, the Huntington Beach Marine Safety operation has been recognized as an international model for efficient, effective and professional open water lifesaving. MSMA does believe that there would be more cost associated with greater changes to policies and procedures if MSMA were to merge with Fire Department. The time required to make these changes would likely impact Marine Safety operations due to limited management staff. F. Page 17, the costing summary for different options is inconsistent with a bias against a Beach Services Department and a standalone department. The factoring in of added costs for a new Community Services Director are inequitable because Mr. Goss didn't factor in the same cost for that same position in all the options (only for the Beach Services Department and the standalone department). This blatant manipulation of the numbers is not only deceptive, but clearly indicates a bias against these two options by making them appear more expensive than the other options. Mr. Goss also factored in $92,000 for a clerical position which was not in our proposal. Clerical help is a low priority compared to needed staff in the field to handle the life safety demand. The Marine Safety Chief would certainly prioritize life safety. Furthermore, the Marine Safety Chief agreed to waive his pay disparity for a 1-2 year period to help establish a Beach Services or Marine Safety Department, but would not for the other options. The Goss Report got it backwards! G. Page 20, Advantages for Beach Safety Department or standalone Marine Safety Department should include: direct access to the City Manager, unfiltered message, greater emphasis on life safety issues, accomplishes strategic goal of enhancing and maintaining public safety, removes dysfunction of recreation leading safety, improves morale of Marine Safety management, and 140 ocean lifeguards and junior lifeguard instructors. H. Page 24 states "as with Police and Fire, there is a somewhat common mission between Marine Safety and the rest of Community Services. The entire Department has a focus on the 6 1 P a g e provision of leisure services, with the beach and related campgrounds adding to the recreational experience for those visiting Huntington Beach. This likely was the rationale a number of years ago for placing Marine Safety in Community Services in the first place." This statement is either laced with sarcasm or indicates a total lack of respect and understanding for the safety designation bestowed upon Ocean Lifeguards for risking their lives to save others. At the very least it is an unprofessional characterization that should be retracted from the report. I. In both the Fire and Police options, the Goss Report correctly points out that Marine Safety titles may need to be changed to accurately reflect rank within the organization. It will also be important to adjust rank within the ICS system and with other similar Lifeguard agencies. That said, MSMA has never requested pay increases as part of a change in department status or a merger. J. Page 13-14, Table III-A and B makes a compelling argument for an apparent bias. This table omits the California State Lifeguards, the largest lifeguard operation in the world and borders us on both sides. It functions with lifeguards supervising parking and maintenance staff copied from the Harbors and Beaches Department model implemented by Chief Moorhouse in 1963. Emulating the Moorhouse model with parking revenues supporting all beach operations, the State developed the Bolsa Chica and Huntington State Beach parking lots and facilities in the 1970s using full time lifeguards as Peace Officers, who carry firearms and function more similarly to a police model than a fire model. The California State Lifeguards were listed on the top of the Ocean Lifeguard Agency matrix MSMA provided to Mr. Goss. Since the majority of the Goss Report conclusions are based on the trends of other agencies, to simply omit the State Lifeguards as a comparable agency illustrates bias. There were numerous comparisons to lifeguard agencies in the study, but none were made with the State agency. K. Page 18, Mr. Goss created the ridiculous term "Leisure Services Department" to kill any prospects for merging library with recreation, even though he told MSMA that the trend to "streamline government services" has been to do exactly that. Further, he points out that if library and recreation were to merge now with "the current skill sets of those two managers", then it would be a "dysfunctional department". How different is this "dysfunction" with recreation staff leading Marine Safety operations as a Public Safety Director of Community Services? L. Mr. Goss disclosed at the beginning of his meeting with MSMA that he did have a prior working relationship with the City Manager (going back more than a decade with his duties serving San Bernardino) and that he had previously consulted for the City regarding Sunset 7 Page Beach. He also stated that he would "attempt to be neutral". Based on the omissions of evidence, the MSMA feels that Mr. Goss failed to deliver a fair and impartial assessment. IV. Invalid Conclusions A. Page 9 cites that "during the past two budget cycles, Marine Safety Division avoided budget reductions...had direct access to an Assistant City Manager during this time." Clearly, this is a reason why Marine Safety should be a standalone department because Marine Safety fared better when given direct access to city management. Direct access to the City Manager without filtering should be listed as an Advantage for both the Beach Services Department and Marine Safety Department options. B. Page 9 and 10 suggests that Marine Safety has "fared well" under Community Services citing a "new Lifeguard Headquarters and Junior Guard facility". These facilities were constructed as part of the South Beach Improvements Project and are utilized by other Community Services Department Divisions, other City departments and the general public. To use this as a metric by saying "Marine Safety did not fare any worse...and some could argue that they have fared better than (police or fire)" is not an appropriate metric and outlandish. These redundant, unsubstantiated remarks are without merit. An appropriate fiscal allocation metric is a "10-Year Budget Analysis" by department from FY 2001-10 which revealed an annual growth rate for Fire 5.1%, Police 4.2% and Marine Safety 2.7%. Clearly, there is a wide disparity in fiscal allocation and it clearly disputes his redundant, unsubstantiated conclusions throughout suggesting that Marine Safety"fared better than (police or fire)". C. Page 9 and 10 also cites the "new Tower Zero, new Beach Services Center and improved beach vehicles" as examples of how "Marine Safety has fared well in Community Services". Tower Zero, Lifeguard Headquarters and Junior Lifeguard Headquarters all needed to be replaced once they had been rendered structurally unsound after decades of deterioration. Marine Safety does not use the Beach Services Center and the Toyota contract for emergency vehicles is a sponsorship deal that saves the City several hundred thousand dollars each year. These improvements occurred when Marine Safety was in the Community Services Department, but certainly would have been implemented regardless of department affiliation. D. Page 10 states that the Acting Director's second goal of developing "a plan to provide adequate marine safety services during the summer," certainly would seem to embrace the Division's objectives to "restore hours of operation, provide lifeguard service to Sunset Beach, restore the frozen unfunded position (MSO) and develop a long-term plan to provide adequate permanent staff." Simply put, adequate summer staffing will not restore hours of operation (September through June), provide lifeguard service to Sunset Beach, restore the 8 Page frozen unfunded position (MSO) or develop a long-term plan to provide adequate permanent staff. E. Page 11 states that Marine Safety is a "major operation in the Community Services Department" but later concludes that the status quo is an option. Recreation leading as a public safety director is as "dysfunctional" as Mr. Goss states recreation leading the library is "dysfunctional". Recreation leaders have no marine safety experience or training, and are not qualified to serve as a public safety director. Why doesn't his conclusion identify this key point? Why doesn't he recommend that the Community Services Director, which essentially is a Public Safety Director, require a background with safety experience and training like it use to be? F. Page 15 Conclusion is invalid because it fails to compare and contrast the California State Lifeguards in the agency survey. The State agency is the largest lifeguard operation in the world, literally next door and within our city limits. To simply omit them invalidates the study. G. Concluding that a standalone Marine Safety Department would be "too small" to be a department is not substantiated. A standalone Marine Safety Department would rank higher than 6 existing City departments in terms of budget and number of permanent employees. In addition, Marine Safety has the largest recurrent work force in the City. SUMMARY CONCLUSION The Goss Report is riddled with factual errors, omissions of evidence, an apparent bias and invalid conclusions. Mr. Goss simply failed to provide a fair and impartial analysis as illustrated by a number of examples. Flagrantly omitting key evidence like the California State Lifeguards from two table agency comparisons and not using the appropriate fiscal allocation metric to determine how Marine Safety has "fared", is unacceptable. The conclusions are invalid based on incomplete and inappropriate metrics; simply put they are redundant and unsubstantiated. Therefore, the recommendations are also invalid. Although MSMA appreciates the opportunity to partner with City management to determine the most viable path assuring the highest level of quality Marine Safety for our beach community, we continue to hope that a breakthrough will be achieved and MSMA stands ready for further dialogue. Enhancing and maintaining public safety is a top priority and strategic goal for the City. The Marine Safety Chief needs direct access to the City Manager without filtering to address life safety issues and resource allocation. This can best be accomplished by forming a Beach Services Department or a standalone Marine Safety Department. Yours in lifesaving, M"d S Hull& Michael S. Bartlett, MBA MSMA President (714) 345-5792 P.D. Box 602, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 101Page o ,� .;, N_j i - �1 . & z«�.§ a Y .#� .Y,,,.�A U. �, t ��rr{{�� '{g(� b y.� t ,+ " ant A ice s€ ,.5 as yl y fi J+ F Qly77 P k a r4, - ;, wq Q C, .W .,& �^.;* Most W was a�l awl Q, w s ., ,ttry F ':,„ ' _ tax.. j I r,'-'� 'P"73Si { 3 r,"`h Y j s 's , -�',. ',�- `t "'tom r sus , AX 001. 4 IVAtt 04## �� A' �. J l a -i` ' �. w 4n p v} _ � N yam, i �e _ - t=,�� n .ate, 9 ter$ x `"s`As3 �.' r s _ O -s 11 �y E .� g Too =W044 it a JAI MO 14 L vv $ �'.. . MAIN a ''� r' lot 11 Page .. 10-Year Analysis of Budget & FT Staff (in millions of doliars) DEPT.BUDGET 2001/02 7002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Z007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010 11 Change %Rate POLICE 42.998 42.52 40.547 46.821 50.864 58.223 57.536 60.147 58.68 61.091 19:093 4296 FIRE. 22.6SS 23.433 24503 29.712 29.869 36.495 38.849 34.568 33.112 34.279 11.624 51$6 COMM SERV 11.976 10.312 12.12S 13.579' •,18.096 17.90Z 16.653 16.727 17.782 16;148 6.172. 51% - =-MARINE-AFf '2381 -2 966 3 236- 492 - -392 m= 623 4:053= 523 4 137t92- � j^ FT PERSONNEL (number of full time staff) -POLICE 369 369 367 371 371.5 376 A A� 381 381 381 367 -2 -0.50'16� FIRE 156 156 1S5 156 157 184 185 18S— 184 176.5 20.5 13y& COMM SERV 63.25 63.25 63.25 62.25 66.5 69.75 6%75 69.75 62 -1.25 -2196 MARINE SAFETY 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 -2 25�36 I , dole:Bata obiaine4lt6tq budget repp laastk :on CIRV wgbsfte:. Community 5ervfceseret for 2t7@iffluuB �utt}� € �' vEr.taeiPu '_if�r ,_ tbs;:i K K K Y I s a h . 3 Awl-Wo,'mq, a ,a P ._ s µ _ 21, IT,<4 � . 4 FEZ -Q&yaw ARM hot U r # Ilk 4 .�,64, t In"WO mx" a,_w aY"axv. � T' Ism",x ` V� n� t xra, .�'s r� .'.ask _ I :g C# t C# TVTc- � 94'i x b5 Y R t� p .;a w•^" x. y .x ass t my �9'tp}f �„ +�"t}�' oh, f� Mr, y� " �i'W$ i +wYz IN Jl�e max, .a P / S w h a'Yf ' ate" GtC VC�nt " 5t a"A s�3 ?' Iwo— ' "�4. t �"S¢+ ,£,„•}vim S'R « lity fi � � n, , -.W` IT Tip 3 C . jg ,.y" �* xih: z i# sJ'.^,� �? .a.§P� d7iv/rF»SI � x'�'k M t `iaCSCscf » sx � �q,' tr ,x�: i�`.'s mqv ._` � x a 4 t[1L[ a3ti v{�rNFSH$ Gi a rytr+F S v t �.'�-" ' OCiL1 IC1,� ,1, a `'P." - k� via ,""" .� w #+' �y`• '�. s. } r , rTMxa 'r` r^ Pis.' »K 8 ft.t r aClCl `1{.` <'` b�. ."� .. a5. d` . �, ,it.., kc xWt r tv N t ,! sx; Pn' tin... ;^ '¢ eeYYf�ML 41 k r� .-„ E #"?• 4p 3 '*j,,4` .'3.. ' Z ^`bs,.�a - "Ch it#'C2 Q 'y a .N a ,#�" "",s $''�Y a�C.�..* �" `-,w"ssxx '. ; 01 . nST .mmmylh �'k flg' ,y � �` " ` ,x,,.+ `7 .`a s a �,� a ems, 8 .c "� ',Z a p q § '�? z i 7.7 mot- sx�, rx s..4 # s 'r°$C"�e'• =,q�r^i 'r k.WWI RON Wromm"A' Al gtgr ; im,No TW a. � Ky�q $F "*fl d Rk � W too 070*10 "SOW? F sx a - « IV dam .� r { ' & :h tont 13 Page la lima Pi mop dw r urf _ —for ew tz In PA �w 1 -- — — — b �0 44r roil 7 F ��=�.0= �� Contents �� l� �ul� Table ~,0 H�..°°"�=°�� CHAPTER|—INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 Purposeof the Study...................................................................... .............................................................. 1 Methodology.......................................................................................................................... .......................2 CHAPTERU—ANALYSIS................................................................................................................3 Current Organization Chart—Community Services DopartmenL--------`------------.8 Comparison to the Police Department-----------------------------------.5 Table U+4- 1U'yeor Analysis of Budget& Full-time Staff, Full-Time Personnel (number of full-time staff)..............................................................................................................................5 Table U'B—FY2U13/14 Police Position Control Chart.................................................................................8 Table |1-C—Annual Beach Visitors-------------------------------------7 Exhibit |A3—Annual Beach Visitors ------------------------------------.7 Comparison with the Fire Department-----------------------------------.8 Community Services Department-------------------------------------'8 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................9 Further Analysis ofMSMA Proposals ................................................................................ ..........................9 CHAPTER III—PRACTICES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA BEACH CITIES/COUNTIES.................................12 Table U|+\—Survey of22 California Beach Jurisdictions Organizational Alignment....................... .........12 Table Ill-B—California Jurisdictions Providing Marine Safety Services to Over 1.OUO.00U Visitors Per year............................................................................................................... ......... 13 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER IV-HUNTINGTON BEACH MARINE SAFETY ORGANIZATIONAL OPTIONS...........................15 MarineSafety Department..................... .................................................................................................... 15 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 18 Beach Service Department----------------------------------------. 17 Proposed Organization Chart Department ofBeach Services ---------------------- 17 Summary .................................................................................... ......................................................... 18 Merger with the Police Department------------------------------------. 19 Summary..............................................................................................................................................2U MergerwdhtheFireOepadment-------------------------------------.2U Summary...................................................... ....................................... ...............................................22 Community Services Department...............................................................................................................22 Summary................................................................................................................................... ..........23 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................23 Chapter I Introduction Incorporated in 1909, Huntington Beach has grown from a small seaside town to an energetic beach front City of 189,7071. Besides its business and industry with more than 100,000 jobs, attractive residential ar- eas, and sterling commercial area, a major focus of the City is its 3.5 miles of pristine beach highlighted by the Huntington Beach Pier. At 1,853 feet, it is the longest municipal pier in the nation. A number of special events occur during the year at the beach, and it attracts more than 16,000,000 visitors a year, with 8,000,000— 10,000,000 of these visitors using the City's beaches. The City has had a long history of providing lifeguard and other marine safety services to residents and the millions of visitors to its beaches. The original two lifeguards were employed in 1918, with the first full- time lifeguards hired in 1931. In the 30's these positions were in the Fire Department, and then for a number of years these services were provided through the City's Harbor and Beaches Department. By 1979, this Department was merged with the Recreation and Parks Department to form the Community Services Department. This Department consists of the Divisions of Facilities, Development and Conces- sions, Recreation, Human and Cultural Services, Beach Operations, and Marine Safety. Purpose of Study Apparently over time staff of the Marine Safety Division, along with members of the Marine Safety Man- agement Association (MSMA), has been concerned with providing quality services within the organiza- tional framework of the Community Services Department. Cut backs in full-time staff city-wide also im- pacted the Marine Safety Division with the reduction of a Marine Lieutenant position a number of years ago, the more recent unfunding of a Marine Safety Officer, the reallocation in part-time lifeguard hours that included the closure of three lifeguard towers north of Goldenwest Street. There was also the elimi- nation of off season night patrols. Currently, the Division has a Marine Safety Division Chief, 3 Marine Safety Lieutenants, 9 Marine Safety Officers II, a .5 Administrative Secretary, recurrent staff assigned to supervise and implement the Junior Lifeguard program, and a number of part-time recurrent lifeguards who are employed from March through December. The concern expressed about being located in the Community Services Department seems to be the per- ceived lack of leadership and focus on the needs of the Marine Safety Division and whether or not re- sources are properly prioritized within the Department and possibly within the City. Tied to that concern is the worry that the needs and resource requests from the Marine Safety Division are being filtered and are not coming to the attention of the City Manager and City Council. Also related to that concern is the ques- tion whether or not marine safety has the proper leadership with a department head without a marine safety background. Further, there is a concern that over time the industry-wide reputation of the Hunting- ton Beach Lifeguards as"Leaders in Lifesaving" may be diminished. In any event, the MSMA has proposed reorganizing the Community Services Department by adding a new department entitled, "The Beach Services Department," consisting of the Beach Operations, Parking and Camping, much of the Facilities, Development and Concessions, and Marine Safety Divisions of the Community Services Department. Specifically, the proposed Department would have the Divisions of Ma- rine Safety and Lifeguard Services, Facilities, Development and Concession, Meters and Maintenance and Beach Operations. An alternative recommendation is that the Marine Safety Division becomes a separate department. There is no recommendation concerning what would happen to the remainder of 2012 estimate, City of Huntington Beach website WQI the Community Services Department under either of these two proposals, although an earlier proposal suggested merging the Recreation, Human, and Cultural Services Division with the Library Department. If the Marine Safety Division became a separate department, presumably Beach Services, Parking and Facilities, Development and Concessions could remain in a smaller Community.Services Department, or if a merger occurred with the Library for recreation and cultural services, Beach Services and Parking could be relocated to the Public Works and Police Departments which is a practice of other cities. The purpose of this report is to evaluate these two proposals as well as assessing other organizational options such as merging Marine Safety with the Police or Fire Departments, or retaining this function with- in Community Services. The options being evaluated in this report, then, are: • Create a Marine Safety Department; • Create a Beach Services Department; • Merge Marine Safety with the Police Department; • Merge Marine Safety with the Fire Department; • Retain Marine Safety in the Community Services Department. .One issue which will not be addressed in this study is the issue of job classification and employee com- pensation. For example, if Marine Safety is merged with the Police Department, will a Marine Safety Lieu- tenant be at the same pay grade as a Police Lieutenant, or will a Marine Safety Officer II be at the same pay grade as a Police Sergeant?These classification issues will not be analyzed in this report. This issue is highlighted since in some of the background information reviewed for this report there ap- peared to be classification and compensation issues raised by marine safety personnel. While there will be a need to examine the duties performed by marine safety staff, this report will only make recommen- dations regarding how this staff and the marine safety and related functions should fit into the City's or- ganizational structure. Any subsequent classification issues that may be created as a result of a proposed reorganization will need to be addressed by the City's human resources staff. Methodology The methodology of this study included reviewing documents and data supplied by the City of Huntington Beach. This includes organization charts, data from the City's budget, a 2011 City Strategic Plan paper prepared by the Deputy City Manager and the Fire Chief and a 2012 water rescue white paper prepared by the Fire Department, internal memos and letters. Also data from the United States Lifesaving Associa- tion website was reviewed as well as a letter to the City Council from its executive officer. A study per- formed by a consultant in 2002 was reviewed. Substantial material provided by MSMA was reviewed in- cluding a PowerPoint presentation, articles, charts and financial data, and a report on Lifeguard Effective- ness prepared by a working group that included the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, interviews were conducted with various staff including the Marine Safety Division Chief, Acting Community Services Director, Fire Chief, Police Chief, Human Resources Director, Principal Personnel Analyst, Finance Director, Budget Manager, Library Director, Assistant City Manager, MSMA representa- tives, the supervisors of Beach Operations and Parking/Camping, and a representative of the United States Lifesaving Association. Also, conversations were held with the President of the Huntington Beach Firefighter's Association and the former President and current board member of the Huntington Beach Police Officers'Association. Survey information was obtained comparing the level of activity and organizational structure of California jurisdictions which provide ocean lifeguard services. An emphasis was on the marine safety agencies serving the largest visitor beach population served in Southern California with similar service levels to the City of Huntington Beach. Uaain'46w Bee-, `- The information gleaned from document and data review, interviews, and survey data for other jurisdic- tions Was analyzed from the perspective of the best organizational structure, operational efficiency, and cost impact on the City. w Bea,-..'. Chapter II Analysis As mentioned in Chapter I — Introduction, the purpose of this study is to evaluate a proposal to create a Beach Services Department consisting of the current Community Services Department Divisions of Ma- rine Safety, Beach Operations, and the event/concession portion of Facilities, Development and Conces- sions Division, or create a standalone Marine Safety Department. The current Community Services De- partment organization chart with the sections identified that would be part of the proposed Beach Ser- vices Department are shown in the following organization chart. Current Organization Chart Community Services Department EefCommunity Services' o®o a f Depaimen t�� n Human and Cultural Facilities;_Development& Marne Safety Division Beach Operations Divisiorn rvices Division Concession Division Supenntenden Manager Marine Safety Division Chief;; Supervisor These proposals were developed due to a number of factors. Probably the chief factor is the loss of staff resources in providing marine safety services, and the frustration by this group of employees to "be at the budget table" in advocating that adequate resources be provided for their operation. Instead, being part of another department, the concept is that as a standalone department, either as a Marine Safety or Beach Services Department, they will have a more direct voice in competing for scarce resources. The MSMA, for example, has pointed to the loss of a Lieutenant position a number of years ago, the un-funding of one Marine Safety Officer II, the loss of recurrent staff which may have impacted the closure of three beach lifeguard towers, and the loss of night patrols as a reduction in the ability of Marine Safety to provide ade- quate service to the public. Even though these cut backs might have occurred anyway, the inability to be a direct advocate in the budget process is frustrating to those currently providing ocean lifeguard service in Huntington Beach. An article in American Lifeguard Magazine quotes Mike Beuerlein, then President of the California Surf Lifesaving Association, and a City of Huntington Beach Lifeguard Lieutenant, "As funding becomes tighter and tighter, lifesaving needs to be funded and treated with the same regard as other public safety profes- sions—for without proper funding, the job of preventing injury and saving lives is much more difficult."The strong motivation to have the resources to accomplish the lifeguard duties of preventing injury, treating those who are injured, and in saving lives is evident in this statement and in the everyday efforts of life- guards in Huntington Beach and elsewhere. There is no doubt that the City's lifeguards are passionate about fulfilling this mission. The motivation on their part seems to be to secure a more equal status with police and fire in having a platform for advocating for a share of the City's limited resources. Organiza- 2 2010 Winter Issue, American Lifeguard Magazine tionally, this includes a desire in having an individual with a public safety background heading the marine safety function, either as head of a Beach Services or Marine Safety Department, or being part of either the Police or Fire Department. Another issue, which is not a focus of this report, is whether lifeguards are compensated at the same lev- el as their counterparts in nearby jurisdictions. For example, organizationally the location of the marine safety function has changed in other jurisdictions, compared to Huntington Beach. For example, in both nearby Long Beach and Newport Beach, lifeguards and those supervising and administering the lifeguard function, have been folded into the fire department. That has led to a different classification and salary structure in these cities. Information prepared by MSMA, for example, reports that when Newport Beach moved their Lifeguards to the Fire Department, their Marine Safety Officer Its became Marine Safety Cap- tains and Marine Safety Lieutenants became Battalion Chiefs. Those in the Huntington Beach marine safety service see others performing the same work with the same responsibilities, but possibly being classified differently and paid more than those in Huntington Beach. It is understandable that classifica- tion and compensation may be a concern since the Marine Safety Division is a small unit of full-time em- ployees, with little employee turnover resulting in few opportunities for advancement. While this study is evaluating an organizational proposal for a Beach Services Department, or a Marine Safety Department, an underlying factor which may need to be addressed in the future could be classification and compensa- tion issues as a result of any reorganization. Returning to the resource allocation issue, MSMA perceives that with the Community Services Director presenting the Marine Safety budget and by not being "at the budget table" with the City Manager and City Council when budget decisions are made, they do not receive as many resources as other City de- partments. Of course, during recent years of economic decline of the Great Recession, City policy-makers have been challenged with how to allocate limited resources. The City Manager, through his staff, has a thorough budget process in reviewing the budget requests of the various departments and their compo- nent divisions. This normally is within the parameters or constraints provided by the City Manager ex- pressed as budget "targets" based on expected revenues for the coming fiscal year. Difficult decisions have to be made, ultimately by the City Manager, in formulating a proposed expenditure plan for submittal to the City Council which makes the final budget decisions. Department head staff interviewed perceives that the City Council has been making across-the-board cuts, not specific or surgical cuts to departmental budgets. Further, until recently, an Assistant City Manager was well aware of any Marine Safety needs and re- quests since he was also acting head of the Community Services Department for the past two years. So Marine Safety certainly had direct access to the highest administrative levels of the City during this period of time. The City Manager's proposed expenditure plan is based upon a review of budget requests from each De- partment, using "targets" for the annual budget based on available projected revenue. Each Division and Department is not necessarily satisfied with the resources they are eventually allocated. But initially the City Manager, and ultimately the City Council must make these difficult decisions that normally reduce the budgets and/or resources available to each City function. It is a matter of City operations adjusting to the "new normal" of municipal finance. More specifically as it relates to the Marine Safety Division, it was reported by the former Assistant City Manager that during the past two budget cycles there was no city-wide capacity for enhanced services or resources. In fact, when the current budget was adopted the Marine Safety Division was spared cuts by making other adjustments in other divisions of the Community Services Department. Further, even though additional funds were not provided, the head of the Marine Safety Division was given latitude to adjust the allocation of resources provided to his Division.3 The closure of the towers mentioned above were closed due to limited resources city-wide and with the acknowledgement that these areas were least frequented by patrons.. In any event, the Marine Safety 3 Email, Assistant City Manager, City of Anaheim, former Assistant City Manager, City of Huntington Beach, March 6, 2013 Vf l =;�3� �}'lt;fL3t •^ Chief was given the discretion to open these towers with part-time resources. In fact, it is understood that one or more of these towers were opened during this past summer using this authority.4 It should be noted that in the area of capital improvements, which normally have a different funding source than operations, Marine Safety has seen many improvements as part of redevelopment of the beach area, including a new Marine Safety Headquarters, a new Tower Zero, and a Junior Lifeguard Headquarters. They have also obtained improved beach vehicles through outside sponsorships. Comparison t® the Police Department MSMA contends that they have not kept pace with the resources allocated to the Police and Fire Depart- ments. In data provided by MSMA, for example, (see chart titled 10-Year Analysis of Budget and Full- time Staff"), which MSMA used in its power point presentation to the consultant and apparently to City of- ficials and staff as well, it is contended that full-time staffing for the Police Department was reduced only .5% from 369 full-time positions in 2001/02 to 367 in 2010/11. During the same time period, it is asserted that staffing in the Marine Safety Division was reduced 15 percent from 15 to 13 full-time positions. The Finance Department, however, indicates that the staff reduction during this period of time was 14 to 13 full-time positions, a reduction of 7 percent. Dept. Budget 2001102 2002103 2003104 2004105 2005106 2006107 2007108 2008109 2009110 2010111 Change %Rate Police 369 369 367 371 371.5 376 381 381 381 367 -2 -0.50% Fire 156 156 155 156 157 184 185 185 184 176.5 20.5 13% Community 63.25 63.25 63.25 62.25 66.5 69.75 69.75 69.75 69.75 62 -1.25 -2% Service Marine 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 -2 15% Safety NOTE:MSMA indicates that they obtained this data from budget reports posed on City website. This data was not verified with the City Finance De- partment. This Table, in comparing Police and Marine Safety staffing, really presents data that is an apples and or- anges comparison. Proportionately, the Marine Safety function has a much larger contingent of part-time positions required to fulfill their life safety mission compared to the number of part-time positions in the Police Department. While recurrent or part-time hours have also been reduced, a comparison of the loss of full-time positions in Marine Safety vs. the Police Department, which has few part-timers, is an impre- cise comparison. Since there is such a small contingent of full-time positions in Marine Safety compared to the Police Department, even the loss of one of these positions constitutes a large percentage loss to the Division. A much more important point is that the Police Department has also lost significant resources. Currently, the Department has 32 unfilled, unfunded sworn positions. The Position Control Chart maintained by the Finance Department shows that for 2013-14, 32.01 out of 358.50 positions, or 8.9%, are unfunded.5 This includes the absence of funding for 1.01 Lieutenant, 1.00 Sergeant and 23.00 Police Officers. In fact, out of 191 police officer positions, 23 of these positions are defunded. This amounts to a 12% reduction in the number of police officers available to serve the City since no funding is available to fill these positions. (See Table II-B entitled, "2013-14 Police Position Control Chart." 4 Ibid 5 Also, the 358.50 positions are 8.5 positions less than the 367 reported for 2010-11 by MSMA. a 1 Job# Job Description - Revised FY 12/13 Defunded FY 12/13 0286 Accounting Technician I -- -- 0287 Accounting Technician II 3.00 -- 0089 Admin Analyst Sr 2.00 -- 0278 Administrative Assistant 1.00 - 0289 Administrative Secretary 1.00 - 0162 Civilian Check Investigator 2.00 -- 0280 Communications Operator-PD 18.00 (3.00) 0281 Communications Supervisor-PD 6.00 -- 0263 Community Relations Specialist 1.00 - 0312 Court Liaison Specialist 1.00 -- 0166 Crime Analyst 1.00 -- 0165 Crime Analyst Senior -- -- 0255 Crime Scene Investigator 6.00 -- 0119 Criminalist -- -- 0400 Custodian -- - 0486 Detention Administrator 1.00 - 0221 Detention Officer 9.00 - 0220 Detention Officer-Nurse 4.00 -- 0222 Detention Shift Supervisor 4.00 -- 0472 Equip/Auto Maint Crewleader -- -- 0143 Facilities Maint Crewleader 1.00 -- 0470 Forensic Systems Specialist 1.00 -- 0337 Helicopter Maintenance Tech 1.00 -- 0492 Info Systems Technician IV -- -- 0163 Latent Fingerprint Examiner 2.50 -- 0348 Mechanic II -- -- 0455 Parking/Traffic Control Coord -- -- 0262 Parking/Traffic Control Officer 16.00 -- 0577 Parking/Traffic Control Supv 1.00 -- 0594 Police Administrative Services Manager 1.00 -- 0233 Police Captain 3.00 -- 0011 Police Chief 1.00 -- 0022 Police Communications Manager 1.00 -- 0234 Police Lieutenant 10.00 (1.01) 0223 Police Officer 191.00 (23.00) 0197 Police Photo/Imaging Specialist 1.00 - 0094 Police Records Administrator 1.00 - 0307 Police Records Specialist 11.00 -- 0283 Police Records Supervisor 3.00 -- 0282 Police Records Technician 6.00 -- 0225 Police Recruit 4.00 (4.00) 0159 Police Sergeant 27.00 (1.00) 0308 Police Services Specialist 12.00 -- 0215 Police Systems Coordinator 1.00 -- 0259 Property Officer 2.00 -- 0334 Senior Helicopter Maint Tech 1.00 -- TOTAL 358.50 (32.01) :. - It would appear based on "spendable" resources in the City's expenditure plan that the reduction percent- age-wise in sworn public safety officers is roughly comparable between Police and Marine Safety (12% vs. 15%) using the numbers supplied by MSMA. According the City's budget officer, however, there has only been one full-time position eliminated during the 10 year period being compared. This would amount to a reduction of seven percent, rather than 15%, less than is being experienced by the Police Depart- ment. Another concern was expressed that the Police Department received more staff when the Hyatt was opened in 2003, and Marine Safety did not. Data gleaned from the United States Lifesaving Association Website indicates that attendance varies from year to year since a variety of factors can influence this at- tendance. The data reported in Table II-C shows that attendance during the last 10 years reported on the website, which is self-reported by the City, indicates a variation from 8.0 — 10.5 million visitors per year (rounded). As the chart shows, attendance was relatively flat during the development and opening of the Hyatt at about 8.0 million visitors per year(rounded), then peaked from 2006-2009, and now has returned to the level of 8.0 million visitors (rounded) of 2002-2004. r_1WW no Year Est.Annual Beach Visitors 2002 8,000,000 2003 8,000,000 2004 8,000,000 2005 9,000,000 2006 10,100,000 2007 10,200,000 2008 10,500,000 2009 9,700,000 2010 8,000,000 2011 7,900,000 This same information is shown on the following graph entitled, "Exhibit II-B — Annual Beach Visitors." Again, this data was obtained from the U. S. Lifesaving Association website. Exhibit 11-I3—Annual Beach Visitors io,OfOGloocl ! --------__________- 8,1_00 POCam _ 1 � . Q. D 2,DDO,D&O L #_ go H 2 200 2r_041' 200-5 2006 2W7 ?003 20DL 2u1;, 2011 T On the other hand, the Police Department likely expected increased law enforcement activity as a result of this major new tourist facility. Obviously, this is a decision over allocation of resources made nearly a decade ago, and is not a current issue. But the Police Department probably had a stronger argument for more staff than did Marine Safety since the number of beach goers in broad terms was not trending up- ward at that time. In any case, due to the economic downturn, it appears that percentage-wise the Police Department has been hit as hard or harder compared to Marine Safety in recent years, especially since the Police Department currently has 32 defunded positions. Another issue regarding the allocation of resources as it relates to law enforcement is the contention by MSMA that because of the reduction in recurrent lifeguard hours, and the loss of night rescue capability, a gap in protection has been created for those smuggling drugs or undocumented aliens into California. It was mentioned that there have been nine panga boat landings on the beach. It is reported by the Police Chief, however, that there have only been six panga boat landings. His view is that these landings have nothing to do with whether or not there is a Marine Safety presence, but has more to do with a significant increase in security along the International Border with Mexico forcing this form of attempted access into the United States. Comparison with the Fire Department The comparison of Marine Safety with the Fire Department over resource allocation is even more distort- ed after the original data from MSMA is examined. While the raw budget data obtained by MSMA indi- cates that full-time fire staff grew from 156 positions to 176.5 from 2001/02 through 2010/11, that compar- ison ignores that this bump in Fire staffing was due to the Fire Department bringing the ambulance opera- tor staffing in-house. The City had contracted with a private company for ambulance personnel and in 2006 took the staffing in-house to save money. This increased the overall staffing within the Department by 24 positions. Over the ten year period being evaluated from the budget data supplied by MSMA the Fire Department actually reduced their staffing. During the past five years, for example, the Department's full-time staffing has been reduced from 185 to 176.5. From another perspective, the Huntington Beach Firefighters Association (HBFA) has lost 7% of their membership positions since 2009/2010. These positions have either been frozen and unfunded, com- pletely eliminated, or permanently replaced with non-safety positions. All of these positions were either promotional or career development positions that came with increased pay. Further, one of the five Battal- ion Chief positions has been lost which is a 20% reduction at this rank. Community Services Department While a concern has been expressed that having a non-safety department head has hurt the ability of Ma- rine Safety to obtain needed General Fund resources for staffing compared to the Police and Fire De- partments, an examination of the staffing data does not support that conclusion. As mentioned earlier, during the past two budget cycles the Marine Safety Division avoided budget reduc- tions which were redirected to other parts of the Community Services Department. Plus, Marine Safety had direct access to an Assistant City Manager during this time since he was overseeing the Department in the absence of a Department Director. In connection with capital improvement funds and grants, which cannot be used for general operations, it appears that Marine Safety has fared well while in Community Services. As mentioned previously, staff from that Department cite a number of capital and equipment improvements, including: ® New Marine Safety Headquarters; 6 Huntington Beach Police Chief, March 1, 2013. Email, Huntington Beach Fire Chief, February 21, 2013. 8 Email, Huntington Beach Fire Chief, February 22, 2012. o New Marine Education Center—Home of the Junior Lifeguards; ® New Tower Zero; ® New Beach Services Center; and o Improved Beach Vehicles. In a more recent communication exchange there was concern that the Acting Community Services Direc- tor did not pass along the Marine Safety's six goals as part of a City Council strategic planning process.9 The concern was that the Acting Director's submittal screened out Marine Safety's specific goals. It ap- pears, however, that the Acting Director's 'goals' were broadly stated and generally encompassed the Marine Safety Division's submittals which could be characterized as 'objectives.' While the City's Strategic Planning nomenclature may reflect different definitions of"goals" and "objectives,"the relationship of what was submitted by the Acting Director to what was submitted by the Marine Safety Division is like broadly stated "goals" compared to more specific"objectives." The Acting Director's first goal: submit "a recommendation for appropriate placement of marine safety within the city organization," which generally encompasses the Division's first objective of"determine the feasibility and necessary steps to create a Beach Services Department." The Acting Director's second goal of developing "a plan to provide adequate marine safety services during the summer," certainly would seem to embrace the Division's objectives of: "restore hours of operation," "provide lifeguard ser- vice to Sunset Beach," restore the "frozen unfunded" position (MSO) and "develop a long-term plan to provide adequate permanent staff." Apparently, as a result of that process, the issues of organization and next year's budget concerns as it relates to Marine Safety are now being discussed with management as part of the Strategic Planning process. Conclusions In comparing the reduction of resources among Marine Safety, Police, and Fire, it appears in general terms that Marine Safety did not fare any worse than the two large public safety departments of the City (Police and Fire). Actually, some could argue that they have fared better than these two public safety de- partments. Further, it appears that the Marine Safety Chief had direct access to an Assistant City Manag- er over the past two years for discussing operational and resource issues. Finally, it appears that Marine Services has fared well in achieving capital and equipment improvements as part of the Community Ser- vices Department. It should be recognized that the loss of resources for a smaller operating unit, even with the loss of only one full-time position (MSO), can be magnified and are more noticeable to those in such a unit. However, while the Marine Safety Division may feel that they have lost more resources by not having the same de- partmental status as the Police and Fire Departments, it appears from a board perspective that all three functions have been uniformly damaged in terms of a reduced resource allocation as a result of the eco- nomic downturn which has hampered full funding of city budgets throughout the state. In other words, Ma- rine Safety likely would not have achieved any better results in avoiding budget cuts if they had a "seat at the (budget) table" as a City department. It is only speculative whether Marine Safety would have fared better if they were part of the Police or Fire Departments. It should be observed in that connection, how- ever, that when both Police and Fire are facing budget cutbacks, the number one priority of these two de- partments likely will not be Marine Safety. Further Analysis of MSMA Proposals The MSMA has made it clear that they are offering two proposals. One is the creation of a Beach Ser- vices Department, which would include the Community Services Divisions of Marine Safety, Beach Oper- ations and the event/concession portion of the Facilities, Development and Concession Division. These 9 Letter, Huntington Beach Marine Safety Management Association, January 31, 2013. are three current divisions of the Community Services Department. This assumes that the Marine Safety Division Chief would be the head of this department since it is their desire to be led by a public safety sworn officer who understands the life safety role of marine safety services. The second proposal is that Marine Safety become a separate City department. While this would be a smaller department, the position of the MSMA is that this would be less costly to implement. It would still achieve their objectives of having department status where their ability to argue for adequate resources would be enhanced. If these options are not recommended or implemented, the MSMA next preferred options would be to be included in either the Police or Fire Departments. While MSMA realizes that there would be less supervi- sion of their function in the Community Services Department, they would prefer to be included in either of the two public safety departments because of the broad similarity of their public safety mission with police or fire. It should be clear to MSMA that, while they are a major operation in the Community Services De- partment, they would be a much smaller function in either police or fire because of the larger size of these departments. Among the public safety departments, MSMA's first choice would be inclusion in the Police Department. This is for a variety of reasons. One is that the rank structure in Police is more similar to Marine Safety than Fire. Another is that Lifeguards and Police Officers sometimes perform joint patrols on the beach and offer support to one another during incidents on the beach. In a letter from the President of the U.S. Lifesaving Association, also points out that "Police are also typically uninterested in broadening into life- guard rescue functions.i10 He points out, however, that this alignment "requires an acceptance by life- guards of aspects of the police culture, which may include full level background investigations for full-time personnel." While there is some similarity in function, and the lifeguards have limited law enforcement authority such as issuing citations and warnings, their broader mission seems more in tune with Fire (rescue, lifesaving, medical aid, and prevention) or Community Services (enhancing and encouraging recreational opportuni- ties and experience,- overseeing a special recreation resource such as a major ocean beach). Another factor in MSMA supporting a merger with Police rather than Fire appears to be a concern that there would be greater supervision of the marine safety function from the Fire Department and that Fire would try to change some of the practices used by Marine Safety in responding to rescues and/or medical aids. The examples cited to support this concern, however, were historical and one was from another City. In Newport Beach, for example, their Fire Department apparently mandated one person rather than two person units, although that occurred in the mid-90s. This decision apparently was reversed a few years later. Also, another historical example expressed by a MSMA representative concerned a former Lifeguard who later became a Fire Captain who expressed the view that Marine Safety should change their operation by replacing the rescue boat with two wave runners. There is not necessarily a correlation between a service level decision that was taken by another city fire department, or an opinion expressed by an individual Huntington Beach Fire Captain who is now retired, compared to the position that would be taken by the current Fire administration. Related to this latter point is a more recent concern by MSMA that with the elimination of a night presence by lifeguards. When that occurred the Fire Department proposed that firefighters be trained to respond to any rescues which might occur after the lifeguard work hours. MSMA worries that this is an example where Fire will start taking steps to modify their lifesaving service practices and begin providing that ser- vice with firefighters in the evening. There is clearly a reluctance on the part of MSMA to support night time ocean rescue responses by Fire. The Fire Chief, however, only views this effort by the Fire Department as filling a service level need during the night time because of the cutback of lifeguard staff. In fact, he feels that the City would be better served if this service were provided by the Marine Safety Division rather than by the Fire Department. 10 Letter, President, U.S. Lifesaving Association, January 11, 2013. - 4`Z .`i 0r :ICIi'7 'LtC!? In an Ocean Rescue Position Paper from Fire it was stated: "There is no doubt that our lifeguards bring more experience and knowledge to water rescues. With this in mind, the best option would be to increase lifeguard staffing in order to provide cover- age during all hours that the beach is open to the public."' But since there was a gap in service, the Fire Department likely does not want to be placed in the same embarrassing position as the Alameda Fire Department a few years ago when responding firefighters stood on the South Shore Beach and watched a man drown since they did not have the training to rescue him. This service gap in Huntington Beach was recently resolved by having an on-call lifeguard available at night. Beginning October 2012, one Marine Safety Officer is assigned a pager/phone with an emergency vehicle, radio, uniform, gear, and equipment to respond to an emergency call within two minutes and ar- rive on scene within 10 minutes. This is, of course, not at the same level of response previously provid- ed,12 but provides the ability to respond at night within the City's limited resources. The Huntington Beach Firefighters Association have indicated that have some concerns should Marine Safety be merged into the Fire Department. While a representative of the firefighters union felt that fire- fighters and marine safety officers work well together, a concern was expressed that, if future across the board budget reductions were necessary with Marine Safety in the Fire Department, Fire Operations might experience greater cuts. While this is a valid concern, one can only speculate what priorities would be set by Fire management be- tween the Fire Operations and Marine Safety functions in the face of any future across the board budget cuts. In that respect, Marine Safety may find itself a second class citizen in a much larger department, whether in Police or Fire, compared to the department where they are now assigned. If a decision is made to merge Marine Safety with Fire, there is clearly a need to have pre-meetings to clarify the role and intent of the Fire Department in overseeing marine safety services. The concerns of MSMA would need to be addressed and fully discussed in order to develop a comfort level that marine safety services would not be degraded or the training for the provision of these services modified. It should be noted, however, that because of the role of emergency medical response of the Fire Depart- ment including rescues, and the fact that the Fire Department's mission is more closely aligned with Ma- rine Safety than Police, then the Fire Department might be more `hands on' in managing Marine Safety than the Police Department. 11 Huntington Beach Fire Department, Ocean Rescue Position Paper, July 2012. 12 President, MSMA, email March 3, 2013. t',: -ofHurntinr` n Beach Chapter III Practices of Other California Beach Cities/Counties In addition to the MSMA perspective of their place with the City's organization, it is also informative to view the practices of other local agencies which provide ocean rescue services. This section examines the practices of other California jurisdictions which provide marine safety services to the beaches within their communities. City staff surveyed 22 jurisdictions13 throughout the State which provide ocean lifeguard service. This sur- vey was refined since this survey missed the marine safety services provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department, which are substantial in scope. This information was added to the survey. Also Santa Monica was deleted from this survey since its beaches have been served by Los Angeles County Fire since the 1970s. This adjustment in surveyed jurisdictions resulted in data which shows that 12 out of 22 agencies, or slightly over half, assign this service to the fire department. In the remaining 10 agencies, five cities assign this function to a community services or parks and recrea- tion department, two were standalone departments, two were part of the harbor department, and one was administered by the police department. The results of this survey, as supplemented, are presented in Ta- ble III-A, entitled, "Survey of 22 California Beach Jurisdictions, Organizational Alignment." city Fire CS/P&R Harbor Police Stand Alone _ Ca itola ✓ Coronado ✓ Del Mar ✓ Encinitas ✓ HUNTINGTON BEACH ✓ Imperial Beach ✓ La una Beach ✓ Long Beach ✓ Los Angeles Cit ✓ Los Angeles Count ✓ Newport Beach ✓ Oceanside ✓ Pismo Beach ✓ Port Hueneme ✓ San Clemente ✓ San Diego ✓ San Luis Obispo ✓ Port San Luis ✓ Santa Barbara ✓ Santa Cruz ✓ Seal Beach ✓ Solana Beach ✓ Totals 12 1 5 2 1 2 13 Memo, "Marine Safety Proposal," Director of Human Resources, January 10, 2013. — -- - - - - 13 Pcr,(,�e �h'1'(7f��tlflflYlz<.,Tit�i2l�e'C7<` Many of the jurisdictions listed in Table III-A serve far fewer visitors than the more active cities like San Diego, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Long Beach. Their operations are much smaller with few- er staff which permits the marine safety function to be easily folded into a larger operation. More pertinent to this study is the practice of agencies with substantial ocean lifeguard responsibilities similar to the City of Huntington Beach. As a result, a more focused list of agencies has been developed for analysis. In the following Table III-B a list of the more active marine safety functions in California are shown, arbi- trarily defined as those operations which serve more than 1,000,000 visitors per year. This Table presents the number of visitors, rescues, medical aids, and preventative actions provided in each jurisdiction. This information is based on 2011 data compiled by the United States Lifesaving Association and is data found on their web site. Preventative Jurisdiction Attendance Rescues Medical Aids Actions Department Coronado 3,550,000 212 483 6,756 Fire Del Mar 2,216,969 382 995 5,415 CS/P&R Encinitas 3,440,422 14 1,434 2,981 7,634 Fire =UNTINGTON BEACH 7,936,526 3,829 1,349 117,095 CS/P&R Imperial Beach 1,918,700 324 320 19,004 Fire Laguna Beach 4,315,450 2,446 4,316 123,759 Stand Alone Long Beach 6,600,000 3,204 4,775 184,407 Fire Los Angeles City 1,425,182 41 189 18,852 CS/P&R Los Angeles County 61,542,422 8,352 15,156 939,366 Fire Oceanside 4,012,800 1,689 2,760 60,112 Fire Newport Beach 9,446,850 3,525 6,969 131,688 Fire Seal Beach 2,100,000 1,339 1,182 51,235 Stand Alone San Clemente 2,232,600 2,553 1,349 42,987 CS/P&R San Diego 21,705,659 5,333 4,217 223,845 Fire As can be seen from this chart, Huntington Beach has the fourth most visitors among the 14 jurisdictions surveyed with an annual estimated attendance in 2011 of 7,936,526. This is behind Los Angeles County, and the cities of San Diego and Newport Beach. It reported the third most rescues (3,829) behind Los Angeles County and San Diego. Huntington Beach, however, was not as active in providing the number of medical aids, tied with San Clemente for 8`h behind Los Angeles County, Newport Beach, Long Beach, Laguna Beach, San Diego, Encinitas, and Oceanside. In terms of preventative actions (such as rip cur- rent warnings) Huntington Beach was 61h following Los Angeles County, San Diego, Long Beach, Newport Beach, and Laguna Beach. From an organization perspective the Table III-B shows that 8 of the 14 jurisdictions which have a larger service responsibility in terms of visitors' served slightly over 50% provide marine safety services through their fire departments. Four agencies provide this service through the community services or parks and recreation department, and two are standalone operations. Of course, the number of visitors served varies widely from an estimated 1.4 million in the City of Los An- geles, to over 61 million on beaches serviced by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. By far the largest number of visitors served is by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (61.5 million) along with the City of San Diego Fire Department (21.7 million). These jurisdictions are followed by Newport Beach with 9.4 million visitors, Huntington Beach with 7.9 million visitors,15 and Long Beach with 6.6 million visi- 14 Data for this table is for 2011 except for attendance at Encinitas which is for 2010. 15 Material supplied by MSMA indicates that the average visitor attendance during the five year period 2005 - 2009 was 9.93 million. However, attendance will vary from year to year, and the 2011 data from the USLA was used for consistency in comparing Huntington Beach with other agencies. tors. It is informative that among these five jurisdictions which have the largest service demand in terms of visitors, four provide their marine safety services through their fire department. The only exception is Hun- tington Beach which provides the service through their Community Services Department. It appears that there has been a general trend for the marine safety function to migrate to the fire department over the past two decades. But this function is also found in other departments as well as a standalone depart- ment. Conclusion As a general conclusion from the data provided in the two tables, the most common organization ar- rangement for the provision of marine safety service is through a jurisdiction's fire department. This is based on 12 out of 22 jurisdictions providing this service in a survey of jurisdictions which provide this service up and down the California coast. Among the larger marine service operations most similar to Huntington Beach, based principally in Southern California, 8 out of 14 of these jurisdictions assign this function to the fire department. The fact that four of the five jurisdictions from this group that serve the most visitors assign this function to the fire department is also informative. It is assumed that this may be in part because of the common mission between fire and marine safety related to rescue and providing medical aid. In the above surveys it should be noted that there are two busy but smaller marine safety functions in La- guna Beach and Seal Beach which provide these functions through a standalone department. Seal Beach, however, contracts for fire services and does not have a city fire department option for overseeing the marine safety operation. Laguna Beach, on the other hand, has the option to merge this function with their fire department but has chosen not to use this organizational arrangement. Chapter Huntington Beach Marine Safety rtyanizati na Options Based on input from MSMA, an analysis of the resource allocation issue among the City's three public safety functions, the experience of other comparable agencies, and the application of organizational prin- ciples, an analysis of options for the placement of the Marine Safety Division in the City of Huntington Beach organizational structure are presented in this section. To recap, the organizational options for placement of Marine Safety are: • Create a Marine Safety Department; • Create a Beach Services Department; • Merge Marine Safety with the Fire Department; • Merge Marine Safety with the Police Department; and • Retain Marine Safety in the Community Services Department. In the earlier Analysis Chapter, issues which have been raised to support changing the current organiza- tional alignment of Marine Safety within the City have been evaluated and discussed. The purpose of this section is to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of each organizational option. Marine Safety Department This proposal would be to remove the Marine Safety Division from the Community Services Department, elevating Marine Safety to a separate City department. Presumably under this scenario, the Community Services Department would remain a separate, but smaller Department. The advantages of this proposal are that the Lifeguards would have a department head with a marine safety background. This person presumably would have the knowledge and skills to supervise the marine safety function and provide leadership to its employees. They would have a better understanding of the needed resources to support the marine safety operations. They would understand the policies and pro- cedures of the marine safety function and have a detailed knowledge how they apply to day-to-day opera- tions. They would also be an advocate for Marine Safety "objectives," not screened by a Department Head. In the on-going Strategic Planning process, however, it appears there may be confusion whether"goals" or "objectives" should first be submitted as part of the current Strategic Planning process as discussed in the Analysis Section. The new department head also would have a "seat at the budget table" in order to be an advocate for that department's needs for the City's limited resources. Marine services would have a 'champion' at the de- partment head level, and requests for these limited resources would not be `screened' by a non-safety department head. As pointed out in the Analysis Chapter, however, it does not appear that Marine Safety would have fared any better in securing a better allocation of resources whether they were a separate department or part of the Community Services Department. A final advantage is that this would improve the morale of Marine Safety Officers, although it would re- duce the morale of many other City employees. The disadvantages of this proposal include creating an additional small City department resulting in ad- ditional expense to the City. This is because, at a minimum, the division head position would be elevated to a more costly department head position. While the current Marine Safety Chief offered to serve as head of a standalone department without a change in compensation for one-two years, the Human Re- sources Department observed that the Management Employees' Organization (MEO) could file a griev- ance of such an action, if an MEO employee serving in an acting director/department head capacity is not appropriately compensated. In either event, there would be additional expense either initially or after a pe- riod of time. Specifically, according to the Human Resources Director, there initially would be Acting Pay for the new Director at a cost of$28,224. Further, there would be the additional expense of$165,000 — 180,000 for a new Community Services Director. Other costs such as clerical support likely would be generated. It is estimated that the cost of the support of one clerical position would range from $72,273 (Office Assistant II) to $91,583 (Administrative Assistant). The total additional cost could range from $265,000 —300,000. This reorganization option would buck the current trend in city government which is to flatten the city or- ganization and streamline its operations by combining departments. This proposal would expand the number of City departments. The creation of an additional department could be mitigated by merging what is left of Community Ser- vices with the Library to form a Leisure Services Department. However, the skill sets of those currently overseeing Community Services and the Library will not make such a transition feasible. Department heads interviewed outside of these two departments share that conclusion. So the final result would be to create a new City department, rather than look for ways to obtain more efficiency by streamlining the or- ganization. Besides adding another department, the proposed Marine Safety Department is too small to be given separate department status. While there are some small departments, like the Library (27+ full-time posi- tions, it formerly had 37+ full-time positions), and small city offices like the City Clerk, City Attorney, etc., the trend is to avoid creating additional small specialty departments. Even the very important specialty function, ambulance services, has more employees (24) than marine safety, but would not be considered or proposed as a separate city department. Creating a small specialty department would seem to be a move backward, not forward in Huntington Beach's organization structure as the City is trying to adjust to the"new normal" of municipal finance. This proposed option would have a negative impact on the morale of the approximately 35 employees represented by the Municipal Employees Association (MEA). Their view is that they would have addition- al difficulty protecting their employees from budget reductions if the City has three not two public safety departments vying for limited budget resources. They are concerned that this proposed new department does not take into account the impact this option will have on other City employees. They view this option as having a negative impact on the morale of more employees than those that would benefit from this al- ternative. The survey of other jurisdictions which provide ocean lifeguard service, only two smaller jurisdictions op- erate separate marine safety departments. The more common practice is to place this function in fire de- partments (8 jurisdictions) or community services/parks and recreation departments (4 jurisdictions). Summary Advantages: 1. Department Head with marine safety background; 2. Marine Safety Department would have a department head to advocate Department's budget needs;16 and 3. The Marine Safety requests for resource and other needs would not be screened by a non- marine safety department head. 16 The Analysis Chapter questions whether this is an advantage to this organizational alternative since Marine Safety apparently has not fared worse than Police or Fire in the allocation of staff resources. C.' %Hrr3 n I3 Disadvantages: 1. The proposal would result in more cost to the City; 2. The current economics of city government trend toward streamlining and flattening the city organization, not expand it; 3. The proposed department is too small to be considered as a city department; 4. This proposed option would have a negative impact on the morale of employees represented by M EA; 5. The trend in other jurisdictions which have evaluated this issue is to merge marine safety ei- ther with fire or community services; and 6. Marine Safety staffing needs do not seem to be damaged by being part of Community Ser- vices any more than if they were a separate department. Beach vices Department This proposal is to create a department consisting of the divisions of Marine Safety, Parking and Camp- ing, Meters and Maintenance, and Permits, Contracts and Events Support. This proposed department would consist of 25 full-time staff and 205 seasonal staff. (See Proposed Organization Chart — Depart- ment of Beach Services). This Department would require adding another department head level position entitled a Marine Safety Chief, which is included in the 25 full-time staff allocated to this department. The MSMA proposal assumes that the new department head would be the marine safety chief, which in turn would provide two potential internal promotion opportunities (Lieutenant to Marine Safety Division Chief, and Marine Safety Officer 11 to Lieutenant). Proposed Organization Chart Department of Beach Services Director of Beach Services:! " „Marine Safety Chief Marine Safety& \ Permits,.Contracts& Parking&Camping Meters&Maintenance. ;ii Lifeguard Operations' } EventsSupport Marine Safety Manager Parkins Manager - Maintenance Manager',. Support Manager 3 Lieutenants Operations,&Logistics_ AnnuaLPasses, i Meters/Repairs Permits Training,&Education Parking i Cleaning&Maintenance" Concessions Junior.Guard Program Camping;. Sponsorships Special&Specific Events FT Staff-13 ' FT Staff=3 FT'Staff=7 FT Staff=il." Seasonal=145 Seasonal'=40 i Seasonal,=2 Seasonal 0 With this department, what would remain of the Community Services Department are the Recreation, Human and Cultural Services Division. That division could either be a standalone department, or could be considered for merger with the Library Department as part of a new Leisure Services Department. MSMA sees the option of establishing a Beach Services Department as returning an organizational structure similar to the former Harbor and Beaches Department. The advantages of a Beach Services Department are, as with the first option, that the lifeguards would presumably have a department head with a marine safety background. Again, this person would have the knowledge and skills to supervise marine safety, have an understanding of the policies and resources needed for its operation, and provide leadership to this portion of the proposed new department. For this to occur it is assumed that through the selection/promotion process the Marine Safety_Division Chief will demonstrate the ability to supervise the other divisions of this proposed department and advance to head this proposed department. Again, the new department head would have a perceived "seat at the budget table" and serve as an ad- vocate for the department's need for the City's limited resources. Presumably, the new department head would also advocate for the needs of beach maintenance and parking services. Again, as pointed out in the Analysis Chapter, however, it does not appear that creation of a separate department, like Beach Services, would have made any difference in protecting marine safety from the loss of staffing or other resources. This proposed new department has a little more substance as a potential city department compared to a Marine Safety Department. In some respects it returns to a department similar to the old Harbor and Beaches Department, especially if the Harbor Master duties are assigned to the head of this department. However unfortunate as it may be, it appears that cities cannot readily move back in time to previous or- ganizational alignments because of the "new normal" of municipal finance emphasizing a flatter organiza- tional structure with fewer, consolidated departments. The disadvantages of this option are similar to the first option. First, it would create an additional small City Department, although it would be larger than a Marine Safety Department. It would leave a fragment of the Community Services Department, the Division of Recreation, Human and Cultural Services. In ef- fect, it would create two small departments splintering one larger department, increasing rather than de- creasing the number of department directors in the City. Next, this proposal anticipates that the current Marine Safety Division Chief would become the head of this new department. This may occur under this scenario, however, it would need to be determined if the Chief's assumption of additional divisional responsibilities would be within his management skill set. Another option to creating a second small department by splitting Community Services, is to merge Rec- reation, Human and Cultural Services and the Library Department. As discussed above, this would not be a feasible functional arrangement given the skill sets of the two managers that would be involved in such a merger. It would likely create a dysfunctional department that would have the further disadvantage of creating a morale problem among some of those involved in providing recreation and library services. Another disadvantage is that MEA concludes that this alternative also would have a negative impact on the morale of its members. They are concerned that this option, as well as the previous one, does not consider the impact this alternative has on affected MEA employees. An additional disadvantage is that this proposal would be more expensive. The MSMA proposes that the new department head, assuming it is the current Marine Safety Chief, would not receive an increase in pay. As mentioned earlier, however, this could be grieved by MEO according to the Human Resources Director. In addition, the Chief indicated to senior management that he would expect a salary adjustment after a period of time.When this occurs there would be an initial expense of$28,224 in Acting Pay. Further, it has been pointed out that the proposal implies the creation of division manager positions for the divisions of Marine Safety, Parking and Camping, Maintenance, and Support which would incur an additional expense for each new position. This would include acting pay/promotion of a Lieutenant to Ma- rine Safety Division Chief, a Marine Safety Officer II possibly being promoted to Lieutenant, the Park- ing/Camping Supervisor possibly becoming the Parking Manager, the Beach Operations Supervisor pos- sibly becoming the Maintenance Manager, and the creation of a Support Manager position. The minimum total extra cost for creating this new staffing structure in the proposed Beach Services Department is es- timated at $198,286 - $231,112. Should the proposed expected realignment of existing staff not be feasi- ble the total costs for new management positions would be significantly higher. Other costs such as clerical support likely would be generated. It is estimated that the cost of support of one clerical position would range from $72,273 (Office Assistant ll) to $91,583 (Administrative Assistant). That would increase the minimum total additional cost of this option to $270,559-$322,695. The survey of other jurisdictions with a major responsibility for providing ocean lifeguard service for mil- lions of visitors per year indicates that the trend is toward placing this service in either the fire department f 1 ""1,,1 ?f Hr.a , , or a community services/parks and recreation department, not as a standalone department, with or with- out other beach service functions. Summary Advantages: 1. Potential of a department head with a marine safety background; 2. Beach Services would have a department to advocate the Department's budget needs'; and 3. Beach Services resource and other needs would not be screened by a non-safety depart- ment head. Disadvantages: 1. The proposal would result in more cost to the City; 2. This option would split one department into two departments which is counter to the "new normal" of municipal finance of flattening and streamlining city organizations; 3. To avoid creating a second department by merging Recreation, Human and Cultural Services with the Library would not be functionally successful and would likely create a morale prob- lem among affected employees; 4. This proposed option would have a negative impact on the morale of employees represented by MEA; 5. The trend in other jurisdictions is to merge marine safety with either fire or community ser- vices/recreation and parks; with beach maintenance and parking merged with public works and police; and 6. Marine Safety staffing needs do not seem to be damaged by being part of Community Ser- vices any more than if they were a separate department like Beach Services. Merger with the Police Department This proposal would be to merge Marine Safety as a separate division within the Police Department. It would leave the Recreation, Human and Cultural Division and other beach service divisions as either a separate small department or looking for a home with another department like the Library. In considering the advantages of this proposal MSMA indicates that among the remaining organizational alternatives, this would be the preferred option if a separate Marine Safety Department or Beach Services Department were not created. The perceived advantage of the Police Department is that the marine safe- ty services would be overseen by a department head with a public safety background. They see a similarity in the rank structure, viewing the Marine Safety Lieutenant as equivalent to a Police Lieutenant, a Marine Safety Officer II equivalent to a Police Sergeant, and a Marine Safety Officer I equivalent to a Police Officer. While this is not a classification and compensation study, it should be pointed out that there is a compensation difference of approximately $47,000 between a Police Lieuten- ant ($148,116) and a Marine Safety Lieutenant ($100,896). Further, the current staffing of marine safety includes nine Marine Safety Officer Ils, and no Marine Safety Officer Is. So, using the rank equivalency of the Police Department, Marine Safety is currently staffed with three Lieutenants and 9 Sergeants. Another advantage that is presented by MSMA is that lifeguards and police work together in enforcing the law. Police patrol individually or in pairs as do lifeguards. The lifeguards have limited law enforcement au- " The Analysis Chapter questions whether this is an advantage to this organizational alternative since Marine Safety apparently has not fared worse than Police or Fire in the allocation of staff resources. JQ`-',.: thority and mostly issue citations and warnings. They also jointly patrol with police on the beach and they assist each other with crowd control depending on the incident. MSMA also sees being located in the Police Department as being an opportunity to become part of a public safety department with a public safety director, but not having the level of oversight that might oc- cur in the Fire Department. In other words, it is perceived that there would be less of a chance that marine safety operations would be modified if part of the Police Department. There is also the perception that Marine Safety would be protected from reductions in resource allocation. There is no guarantee that this will occur, however. The disadvantages of merging with the Police Department are several. First, there is the likelihood that over time the cost of staffing Marine Safety will increase if their ranks are merged with Police and the Ma- rine Safety staff receives a corresponding increase in compensation. For example, if the three Marine Safety Lieutenants became regular police lieutenants the increased cost would be $141,000 annually. In addition, there could be the cost of staff time revamping the Marine Safety policies and procedures to mesh with those in the Police Department, although that likely would be handled internally without a direct budget increase in the Department. Second, while there are some similarities in the Marine Safety mission compared to Police, this is not a direct match since Lifeguards are not primarily law enforcement officers but are focused more on rescues and medical aid. Third, there is a risk that Marine Safety could suffer budget and staffing reductions since they will be part of a larger public safety department which has broader and more diverse priorities and goals. Fourth, while there is a reluctant willingness by Police management to assume oversight of marine ser- vices, and while the police union does not oppose such a merger, Police management is not receptive to accepting Marine Safety into the Police Department. Fifth, there will not be as much operational oversight of Marine Safety in Police compared to Fire. This may be perceived as an advantage by the lifeguards, but as a disadvantage by management who want to ensure that all city operations have consistent oversight that encourages appropriate responsibility and accountability. This does not mean that there would be insufficient supervision of this function in the Po- lice Department, but that there could be more oversight over the specifics of Marine Safety operations in the Fire Department due to the common functions between Fire and Marine Safety of rescue and medical aid. Sixth, the practice of other beach jurisdictions is to provide marine safety services through the fire or community services/recreation and parks departments. The only California city where the police depart- ment oversees ocean lifeguard service is the small City of Capitola near Santa Cruz. Summary Advantages: 1. Department head with public safety background; 2. Some similarity in rank structure; 3. Some similarity in patrol operations; 4. Less oversight compared to the Fire Department; and 5. Perceived protection in the allocation of resources. Disadvantages: 1. Increased cost; 2. There is greater similarity in the missions of other departments as described in the other or- ganizational options; �_171 77:-7(Z7'Z(7Z('7 p:'{2 3. Marine Safety assumes a greater risk of further budget reductions as a small operational unit in a larger public safety department; 4. Police management is willing but not receptive to provide oversight to Marine Safety; 5. Better operational oversight can be provided if Marine Safety is part-of either the Fire or Community Services Department; 6. Other jurisdictions who have evaluated this issue have found that lifeguard service can be better provided in other organizational alignments such as Fire or Community Services than with merger with a police department; and 7. Either a smaller Community Services Department would be left, or an ineffective merger with the Library would be created. In the former case, this option would reverse the trend among cities to flatten and streamline their operations. Merger with the Fire Department There was significant discussion about moving Marine Safety into the Fire Department in 2011. In fact, as an element of the City's 2011 Strategic Plan, the Deputy City Manager and Fire Chief were assigned a strategic plan objective to provide a report to the City Council via the City Manager evaluating the as- signment of Marine Safety to the Fire Chief.18 In response, the MSMA wrote: "The MSMA believes that Marine Safety services in Huntington Beach would continue to be delivered at the highest possible level in the Fire Department if: 1. The Marine Safety Division remains a division in the Fire Department. 2. The Marine Safety Division retains all Marine Safety positions. 3. The Marine Safety Division job titles change to appropriately align with similar positions in the Fire Department."19 Attached to this letter was a document entitled "MSMA Title Change Rationale," which argued that if Ma- rine Safety merged with Fire the title of Marine Safety Lieutenant should be changed to Marine Safety Section Chief or Battalion Chief, and that the Marine Safety Officer II should be changed to Marine Safety Captain. This merger did not occur, since the City was going through a number of other significant changes due to major budget constraints and downsizing. The merger was put on hold while other budget issues were addressed. The advantages to merging Marine Safety with the Fire Department include having a public safety direc- tor as a department head, an objective of MSMA. Second, the mission of Marine Safety and Fire seem more compatible than any other department. In terms of activity level both Marine Safety and Fire spend a significant amount of time and resources on rescues and medical aid. Third, there could be better oversight of the Marine Safety Division stressing responsibility and accounta- bility. Fourth, after evaluating their own individual operations, most beach cities serving a large number of visi- tors have decided to place the marine safety function in the fire department. This function was moved from recreation to the fire department in San Diego, from a standalone department to the fire department in Newport Beach, from the harbor department to the fire department in Oceanside, and from parks, rec- reation, and marinas to the fire department in Long Beach. These moves were made in the mid-1990s except for Oceanside which made the change in 2010. 8 City of Huntington Beach, 2011 Strategic Planning Objective, 10/11/2011. 9 Letter from the President, MSMA, July 14, 2011. TT- Fifth, some minor operational efficiencies are possible such as purchase of medical supplies. There is al- so the opportunity for joint training and for continuing education related to emergency medical technician (EMT) certification. The disadvantages to Marine Safety merging with the Fire Department include the potential of extra ex- pense, especially if the job titles were changed and salary increases were negotiated as proposed in MSMA's July 14, 2011 letter cited previously. Other than that, even though the Marine Division Safety Chief would become part of the Fire Department management team, this does not mean that this or any other Marine Safety position would require additional pay. Also, MSMA makes the point that there would be additional expense in reformatting and revising the ma- rine safety policies and procedures to conform to those of the Fire Department. This expense, however, would be in the form of staff time, not as a direct additional expense. This work could be assigned as a secondary duty to which ever staff would be given this task by the Fire Chief, and spread over a period of months or years for completion. Additional budget expense would not be anticipated. Another point made by MSMA is that Fire management may be potentially intrusive into the oversight of the marine safety operations. As pointed in the Analysis Chapter, however, examples to support this con- cern were either dated, or did not accurately reflect the position of Fire management as it relates to the current issue of night patrols. Further, MSMA observes that Fire has a different rank structure and responds as teams, not as one or two person patrols. However, this difference seems to have been resolved in the jurisdictions which have merged marine safety with fire, which constitutes the majority of jurisdictions surveyed. A definite disadvantage, as in the Police Department, is that Marine Safety assumes a greater risk of los- ing budgeted resources since it will be a small organizational unit within a larger public safety department. There will be competing demands for these resources within the Fire Department, and how marine safety will fare within this environment is open to speculation. Even though the fire union is concerned that Ma- rine Safety will reduce funds available for Fire Operations with Marine Safety in the Fire Department, this does not mean that Marine Safety would avoid the "budget axe" if across-the-board budget reductions were required. Fifth, a smaller Community Services Department would remain after such a merger. An option would be to merge what is left of Community Services with the Library, which would be ineffective and is not rec- ommended. Summary Advantages: 1. Leadership of a public safety director would be provided; 2. Marine Safety and Fire have the most common mission between departments than any other alternatives; 3. Better oversight of the Marine Safety function stressing responsibility and accountability would be provided; 4. The majority of beach communities which serve large numbers of visitors and have evaluated the best organizational location of marine safety services have concluded that these services would best be provided in the fire department; and 5. There would be minor cost savings related to purchasing and training. Disadvantages: 1. Potential that Marine Safety assumes a greater risk of further budget reductions as a small operational unit in a larger public safety department; 2. The fire union is not as receptive of Marine Safety being located in the Fire Department com- pared to the police union in accepting them into the Police Department; and 3. A smaller Community Services Department will be created, or an ineffective merger with the Library will be created. Community Services Department The final option is for the Marine Safety Division to stay in the Community Services Department. This is opposed by MSMA since they desire to either be part of a standalone department or merged with a public safety department. There are several advantages of retaining the status quo. One is that there were would be no additional cost compared to some of the other reorganizational alternatives discussed. Further, there would not be any potential "salary creep" as a result of the possible transition to new job titles in the public safety de- partments, like Marine Safety Lieutenant to Police Lieutenant or Battalion Chief. As a result, future addi- tional salary expense would be avoided. Second, a larger department will not be split into two smaller departments as with the other organizational options. This would then avoid developing a less efficient organizational structure for the City. Third, Marine Safety would avoid being a small unit in a large public safety department with the corre- sponding negative impact this might have on their operating budget. This is because the public safety de- partments have other priorities which would compete with Marine Safety needs. While Marine Safety lost some resources through the budget process while in Community Services, so have all other City opera- tions including Police and Fire. This report finds that Marine Safety did not fare any worse than the two public safety departments in terms of staffing allocation. Further, Marine Safety has benefitted from the construction of important capital projects while part of Community Safety. Fourth, as with Police and Fire, there is a somewhat common mission between Marine Safety and the rest of Community Services. The entire Department has a focus on the provision of leisure services, with the beach and related campgrounds adding to the recreational experience for those visiting Huntington Beach. This likely was the rationale a number of years ago for placing Marine Safety in Community Ser- vices in the first place. Fifth, the morale issues expressed by MEA regarding the creation of either a Marine Safety or Beach Services Department would be avoided. Sixth, there would not be an opportunity for the negotiation of title changes and salary increases if there is a merger with either Police or Fire as has occurred in other cities. There are also several disadvantages of maintaining the status quo. First, there is the perceived lack of leadership for Marine Safety with the Community Services Director not having a public safety back- ground, when that position is ultimately filled. This is viewed as being managed by someone who does not fully appreciate the needs of Marine Safety, who in turn "screens out" needed resource requests or strategic planning objectives, even though the Analysis Chapter shows that Marine Safety did not fare any worse than Police or Fire in maintaining staffing resources. Access to the highest levels of city admin- istration was expressed as a concern, although a Deputy City Manager has been the de facto department head for the past two years. Second, this option is the least favored by MSMA. While "rank-and-file" employees do not supplant the City Manager and the City Council in deciding how a City should be organized, there definitely would be a morale issue among marine safety employees if the status quo is maintained. On the other hand, and as previously mentioned, there would be a morale issue among the Community Services Department em- ployees represented by MEA if standalone departments were created for the marine safety function. Third, most jurisdictions serving beaches with a large number of visitors place marine safety in the fire department rather than in community services/recreation and parks. Summary Advantages 1. No additional cost; 2. Additional salary expense associated with some of the other options would be avoided; 3. Increasing the number of City departments would be avoided; 4. Marine Safety would likely have a louder voice regarding resource allocation matters in a smaller department like Community Services, compared to the two larger public safety de- partments; 5. There is some commonality in mission between Marine Services and Community Services, although not to the same extent as with the Fire Department; 6. There would not be the need to adjust job titles or rank structure; and 7. Potential morale issues among MEA employees would be avoided. Disadvantages: 1. There is a perceived lack of a departmental leader without a public safety background; 2. Potential morale issues among marine safety employees; and 3. Most comparable jurisdictions favor fire rather than community services in providing marine safety services. Conclusions As can be seen from this summary discussion of the five organizational alternatives for providing marine safety services there are pros and cons for each option. It appears, however, that the two best options are either preserving the status quo and maintaining the Marine Safety Division in the Community Ser- vices Department, or merging Marine Safety with the Fire Department. The first two options involve creating a standalone department would create two small departments from a larger department, and lead to an overall City organization that is less streamlined. In terms of current values and criteria for analyzing municipal organizations, this is a step backward rather than a step for- ward. Regarding the Police Department its overall mission is not as inclusive with Marine Safety as is Fire or Community Services. The lack of enthusiasm by department management to assume oversight of this function is not the best foundation for a satisfactory merger. Merging Marine Safety with Fire would place a public safety function with a public safety department which has with a focus on medical assistance and rescues. There would be no additional cost. There also would be no additional expense in maintaining the status quo, but there would be a continued morale is- sue in the Marine Safety Division. Therefore, it is recommended that the City either maintain the status quo, or merge Marine Safety with the Fire Department. If the decision is made to merge Marine Safety with Fire, it is suggested that pre-merger meetings be conducted to clarify the role and intent of the Fire Department in overseeing these services. The concerns expressed by MSMA should be fully addressed in order to develop trust that marine safety services would not be degraded. If it is decided that the status quo should be maintained, the marine safety employees should be fully informed about current and future meetings with the City Manager which are addressing many of the concerns raised by MSMA related to resource allocation.20 20 Concerns were expressed to justify organizational change, but were business practice issues unrelated to this or- ganizational study. If viewed appropriate by city management, there are three suggestions which are offered for con- sideration. These suggestions are: 1. It was mentioned by the Marine Safety Division Chief that permits, such as film permits, and other event decision- making, need to go up the chain of command through the Community Services Director to the City Manager's Of- fice, and then back to the Division Chief to determine if a permit should be approved. If this is viewed as a cum- bersome procedure, It is suggested that the Marine Safety Division Chief be tasked with preparing a proposal, along with support for that proposal, for processing permit submittals more efficiently. 2.A concern was expressed that the Marine Safety Division Chief does not have the authority to activate the Emer- gency Operations Center (EOC). While this procedural issue does not support a reorganization of the City, per- haps this issue could be evaluated by the City if deemed appropriate by the Police and Fire Chiefs. If so, it is sug- gested that the Marine Safety Division Chief be assigned the task of preparing a proposal, along with support for that proposal,for giving the Chief the authority to activate the EOC. 3.It was asserted during,the interview process that the Parking Division was not achieving full revenue recovery be- cause the parking garage cannot be fully staffed. The City's budget officer may want to review parking revenue data to determine if this assertion has merit. 26 P