California City Council directs staff to negotiate Kern County Fire takeover under Proposal A amid fiscal shortfall

The California City Council voted unanimously on Nov. 3, 2025, to direct staff to formally begin contract negotiations with Kern County Fire for the provision of fire services in California City and to meet and confer under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, with the council selecting Proposal A for further negotiation.

City Manager Lopez told the council the Kern County proposal includes full fire prevention and suppression, emergency medical response, rescue, hazardous-materials response, fire inspections, plan review, cause-and-arson investigation and support services such as dispatching, training, maintenance and procurement. Lopez said the county’s offer includes a $3,980,000 credit that would be phased in over 2.5 years (about 9% in year 1, 35% in year 2 and 50% in year 3) and that the full cost would be recalculated after the phase-in period. Lopez said staff was presenting four staffing options (A–D) that differ by crew size (three- vs. four-person engines) and by whether advanced life support (ALS) is included; staff showed estimated city costs for fiscal years 2025–26 through 2027–28 under each option.

Lopez said the proposals were prepared in response to ongoing fiscal stress: the city has balanced the last two budgets by drawing on fund balance, past special parcel-tax measures failed, and the council previously authorized an interim agreement with Kern County for chief services. Lopez said an assumed effective date for the proposals would be Jan. 1, 2026, and stressed that Kern County’s ownership interest in existing facilities and apparatus would require adjustments if the county elects to keep certain future-delivered equipment.

Public comment at the special meeting ran over an hour and presented sharply divided views. Supporters of the county proposal, including speakers who described detailed fiscal analyses, urged action to avoid insolvency and said the county arrangement would provide stability and capital maintenance the city cannot currently afford. Opponents warned the change would be permanent, would transfer the city’s firehouse, apparatus and capital improvements to the county, and would risk weakening local ties between firefighters and the community.

"We are in pre-bankruptcy," said Jeanne O'Loughlin, who presented payroll and benefit comparisons and told the council she had calculated an approximately $9.5 million savings for the city over the 2.5-year phase-in period under the county contract. "We need to pull the trigger on some things," she said. (Transcript excerpt: Jeanne O'Loughlin.)

Other commenters raised operational questions: whether dispatching would add latency, whether three-person engines provide the same on-scene capabilities as four-person crews, whether firefighters could receive lateral transfers or would lose rank, and what the long-term cost would be once the phased credit expires. Resident Nilsa Meigsner said local firefighters have deep community ties and warned that "this isn't just about numbers. It's about people," adding that donated school funds and community engagement by local firefighters could be harmed if the county assumed control. (Transcript excerpt: Nilsa Meigsner.)

Councilmembers repeated that stability for personnel and fiscal sustainability were central concerns. Mayor Hawkins said the move was not taken lightly and that the council had heard staff and firefighter input; Mayor Pro Tem Creighton and others said Options A or B (the lower-cost, three-person staffing alternatives) were their preferred pathways. Council discussion repeatedly returned to the same trade-off: short-term budget relief and capital reinvestment through the county arrangement versus loss of municipal control and possible longer-term cost increases after the credit phase-in.

At the conclusion of discussion Councilmember (mover not specified) moved to direct staff to negotiate with Kern County Fire for the provision of services under Proposal A and to meet and confer under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act; the motion was seconded (second not specified). A roll-call vote recorded "yes" from Council Member Clark, Council Member Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Creighton and Mayor Hawkins (4–0), and the city manager confirmed the direction to return any finalized agreement to the council for consideration.

What the action does and does not do: the vote directed staff to enter negotiations and to consult with affected bargaining units; it is not a final contract award. Staff indicated the county would take ownership of existing facilities and apparatus if the parties agree, that capital maintenance would become the county’s responsibility, and that the county has offered flexibility in how the asset credit is structured. Staff also noted that after the 2.5-year phase-in the county would recalculate costs based on prevailing conditions, which could change long-term city obligations.

Next steps: staff will begin formal contract negotiations with Kern County Fire, meet-and-confer with affected bargaining groups under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and return contract terms and any required ordinances or fiscal analyses to the council for formal approval. The council also directed staff to bring any requested clarifying information back to the public, including dispatch arrangements, staffing models and the mechanics of any asset-transfer and credit calculations.

Votes at a glance

Motion: Direct staff to formally begin contract negotiations with Kern County Fire for provision of fire services in California City and to meet-and-confer pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, pursuing Proposal A.

Vote: Yes — Council Member Clark; Yes — Council Member Smith; Yes — Mayor Pro Tem Creighton; Yes — Mayor Hawkins (4–0).

Sources and provenance: portions of this article are drawn from the staff presentation and the public-comment record at the Nov. 3, 2025 special meeting (Transcript start: 00:08:11; finish: 01:29:50).