As far back as the district’s formation in 2002 and even before, residents have insisted that far East County is no longer a Bay Area backwater, and we deserve and want the same level of modern fire service provided other suburbanized areas and established as the industry standard by the National Fire Prevention Association: three firefighters per engine, one of whom is a paramedic.
The discussion has included literally dozens of public meetings over more than a decade. The need for standardized service has been confirmed by several reports from fire industry experts, county government analysis and even Local 1230, the union that represents ECCFPD firefighters. All have consistently reached the same conclusion: it is time for far East County to upgrade its fire service.
Equally clear to everyone involved was that reaching that level of service would require additional tax money. District revenue, locked in by 1978’s Proposition 13 at 7 cents on the property-tax dollar, is enough to pay for only the volunteer departments that heroically served the area for decades prior to the onrush of suburbia. Districts providing the modern fire service the ECCFPD has been asked to provide receive more than twice the revenue, 15 cents per tax dollar, to support those services.
Just as a new tax was accepted as inevitable by all involved, it was also agreed that voters would never approve a new tax if money were to go to Martinez. District residents must be in charge of the district, it was believed, rather than the Board of Supervisors, who ran the ECCFPD when it was formed.
The local control issue reared its head again in 2006, when the ECCFPD received a quote for contracted fire service from what was then the California Department of Forestry (CDF, now known as CalFire). The quote, based on the same three-firefighter, one-paramedic model already agreed to, showed CDF could provide the service for about $11.5 million, $470,000 less than the ECCFPD for the same job. The switch would also mean changing work schedules from 56-hour shifts to 72-hour shifts, and a change in guidelines for promotion, both of which Local 1230 opposed.
But even the cheaper (by 4 percent) CDF model would require millions of more dollars in revenue than the district had. Faced with the need for more money in order to consider either option, the need for local control once again became the top district priority. The CDF idea, along with the potentially divisive labor issue it contained, was shelved.
Locals finally got their long-sought local control in 2010. The board started with the idea of going to the people with a measure that would put in place the service model people wanted, and fix the district’s financial woes once and for all. The continuing recession and blooming deficit from retirement benefits faced by virtually every public agency made that a pipe dream. The district’s biggest expense problems were systemic, complex and long-term, and could not be eliminated in the short time left before the district reserves ran out and services were radically reduced.
With current post-employment benefits locked in, pension reform must take the form of a “second tier” of benefits for new hires. State law must be changed to make that possible, and a pair of bills to that end are currently working their way through Sacramento.
But even when the two-tier system is adopted, the debt generated by those already in the system will continue to grow until those on the lower tier become the majority of the employees. Even if retirement benefits were eliminated entirely for second-tier employees, years would pass before that would make a significant impact on the district’s bottom line.
Also years away are other ideas for solving the problem, including a complete overhaul of the county’s fire and emergency medical service system. The difficult process the ECCFPD underwent to get a nine-member board together on a plan would be many times harder if the solution were to include dozens of agencies and departments.
But if Measure S fails in June, the district will run out of money in July. Half the district’s stations will close, and half its firefighters will be laid off. Opponents decry those facts as scare tactics, but although they are scary, they are reality. The political realities also mean that it could be years before a different measure can be agreed to and passed.
Measure S is not perfect. It is not, and is not being sold as, a fix to all the district’s woes. It will enable the district to keep stations open while the permanent fix is hammered out and put in place. The need for benefit reforms has been acknowledged by Local 1230, and negotiations will continue on that in July.
The paramedic portion of the tax, only about $10 per year, is not union-inspired. It is an element of the service model repeatedly asked for by district residents. If S passes, it will ultimately provide six paramedics in the district, which currently relies on three paramedics in quick response vehicles (QRVs) from American Medical Response for advanced lifesaving services. The AMR services are provided as an adjunct to the company’s contract with the county, which expires in two years but would not be affected by a Measure S failure. It is not known how QRVs will be affected when the contract comes back up for negotiation.
As government waste and inefficiency impacts every portion of residents’ lives, and as residents go through financial difficulties of their own, it’s understandable that many would reject any request for more money for government services of any kind. The debate over Measure S has thus largely turned into one of taxpayers versus pensioners, with the major consequences of a failed measure taking a back seat to the need for reform.
Measure S, if passed, will cost district residents about $16 per month ($197 per parcel per year and a maximum 3-percent cost-of-living adjustment per year). Unless voters extend it, the tax will go away in 10 years, during which permanent, far-reaching solutions to the benefit problem must be instituted. There is no need to wait 10 years to put solutions in place, however, and in fact the district will be once again looking at red ink if adjustments are not made in half that time.
The question is how many firefighters will be on duty while the fixes are put in place. Measure S ensures the current model will stay in place, augmented by the paramedics the public has said it wants on fire engines. An additional station will be opened in year four, in a location to be determined by call volumes at the time.
If Measure S fails, the solutions must be worked out with half the personnel, half the stations, and response times that will jump from six or seven minutes to 14 or 15 minutes or more for half the district’s residents. Homeowners’ insurance for some residents in the Morgan Territory area quadrupled in the wake of the district’s closure of stations in 2010, and some policies were cancelled entirely, threatening the underlying mortgage. The same is likely to happen in other areas of the district should stations close, according to State Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones.
We believe voters should pass Measure S in order to ensure critical fire service is maintained while long-term solutions that rely on state approval (the two-tier system) are put in place. It’s unfortunate that the district must ask for money when so many people are already hurting financially, but the reality is that the cost in human lives and property damage of subpar fire service stands to be far higher.
Nine firefighters and three fire engines are not enough to answer the 6,000 calls per year the ECCFPD gets from 105,000 district residents over 250 square miles, but that’s what will be left if Measure S fails. The public should keep the pressure on the district to institute desperately needed reforms, but in the meantime it should avoid drastic cuts in public safety and approve this tax. It’s what we need, as well as what we asked for. Vote Yes on Measure S.
Despite The Brentwood Press’ five-part advocacy piece and impassioned editorial supporting Measure S, the voters recently spoke with volume and clarity regarding their position on the issue. Apparently, your now Pravda-like newspaper sees fit to scold the overwhelming majority of voters with headlines such as Three Fire Stations to Close and Fire District Prepares for Cutbacks.
Okay Brentwood Press, we get it – your politicking was fruitless, you’re feeling ignored and now a hearty “I Told You So” makes you feel better. The voters were obviously aware of the drawbacks of voting down Measure S and we are prepared to deal with it.
It’s time to move-on Brentwood Press, perhaps to actual reporting and less political advocacy, lest you follow in Pravda’s footsteps.
Brandon Richey
Brentwood Press Response: I'm at a loss as to how, when three fire stations are about to be closed, the headline "Three fire stations to close" is inappropriate. Likewise, when they are getting set to decide where cutbacks should be, the headline "Fire district prepares for cutbacks" also seems to be pretty straightforward. These are obviously significant news, hence the fact that it appeared nationwide. Bottom line: I don't understand how these amounted to an "I told you so," or what headlines you feel would have been more appropriate. Or are you suggesting that because people were told it would happen if S lost, we did not need to tell them that it was, indeed, now happening?
My Response: Apparently my point was lost in my letter - in short, it is my opinion that it's pretty obvious the BP took a strong position supporting Measure S, both in news articles and editorials. I believe the Press' reporting is based on nothing even close to journalistic integrity but rather advocacy-reporting, which is better left to thinly-veiled cable news and radio talk shows - or government-based propaganda, as I pointed out in my letter. And yes, I do believe the headlines highlighting the negative side of Measure S's failure are at least partially motivated by The Press' angst with the voting public for not heeding the paper's advice.
I don't expect you to share my opinion, nor print it. However, I stand by my position and encourage The Press to entertain criticism contrary to what apparently is it's own self-assessment.
This is Cheryl Burton, wife of Captain Matt Burton responding to this editorial you are "touting". PS- The names she is referring to, Megan and Josh, are the kids that will never see their father again. Thank you John for wanting to GUT our local fire department:
This whole thing makes my blood boil. This newspaper repeatedly prints its ignorance. I would like this guy to put his feet in my shoes, Megan's shoes or Josh's shoes for 10 minutes and then write about how overpaid our fire department is. There is NOT a price high enough for these men and women to potentially sacrifice their lives and leave a grieving family behind every shift they work. We need bigger crews and ALL of our fire stations. I would never want to be the person standing outside waiting a little longer for the fire department while my babies are in a burning house, wishing I had paid a little more taxes. Maybe he can name a price that is too high for his family but my family is priceless!
VOTE YES ON MEASURE S. DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THE LIKES OF JOHN AND HIS MISINFORMED/MISGUIDED SUPPORTERS. This measure has nothing to do with Unions or putting it back in the faces of the BOS. Protect yourselves and your firefighters. Yes on S.
I'm one vote, you are a hypocrite. How dare you play off of the sorrows of a firefighter family like that. You are pathetic.
I have been in the shoes you talk about pulling people from burning cars and be shot at by felons. Don't preach to me the dangers of public safety. I have been there and paid my dues too.
This is about the union greed of power, overspending, and the duplication of services.
Your Union 1230 and the BOS put you in this mess not me. The voters will decide no matter what I think because they are intelligent enough to know when they are throwing good money down the toilet.
It is about a broken system that this tax will not fix the way it is written.
Like I have said before, bring something to the new tax table that makes sense for everyone and I will revisit my support. Continue with the $29,000,000.00 million in red ink ( I always thought it was 11,000,000.00 but the Times corrected me) and I can not mortgage my children’s future and support a badly put together new tax.
This district I thought dug a million dollar a year red ink debt. Now I find it is actually $2.9 Million dollars of annual overspending since the day it was started.
SHAME ON YOU KNIGHTRIDE to exploit the family of a fallen firefighter. Thats pretty low.
If you want to blame someone try the BOS and the Cities who allowed all the development without proper mitigation.
NO on $ send it back.
P.S. Rick, do not lose the IP address of KnightRide. His comments are selfish and threatening to me. I’m not sure if that is a good attribute for a firefighter who claims to work for the public’s best interest.
By the way, Fire Fighters don't even make the top 10 list of most dangerous jobs in America accoding to CNN. Of course, sanitation workers, roofers, and industrial machine repair do. There are a lot more of them working for a lot less than our FFers make.
Just sayin'...
VOTE YES ON S!!!!!
Note: The Editor previously removed the following post because of the use of the word “funds” . I am not sure why the Editor has allowed sbarr’s comment to stand since it uses the word funds , but rather than quible with him I have
substituted the word “funds” with the word “monies” below.
background:white'>Sbarr:
font-family:Arial;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>Did the City of Brentwood really contribute "monies" to the ECCFPD as Mr. Gonzales is suggesting here? What
was that all about? >
Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting doing so
would have been wrong or illegal. In fact, neither is Mr. Gonzales. I think you
are the only person that is suggesting that would be some sort of illegal
diversion of public font-family:Arial;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>"monies" > . To me, the district provides benefit to Brentwood so
I don't think it’s a huge stretch to have used CFD font-family:Arial;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>"monies" > to assist (supplement)
fire protection services in Brentwood. What is
interesting is the lack of clarity and the implication from you that if it did
happen it would be illegal.
Also the denial that Brentwood has any font-family:Arial;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'> "monies" > that could be used to support fire protection services seems
suspect. I recall you were out in front on urging your City Council to discuss
separation from the ECCFPD last year. Are you going to tell us that these
font-family:Arial;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>"monies" > - that neither you or ThePress had mentioned, and then you denied existed -
would not be used to help fund Brenwtood's "in-house" fire protection
service?
None of this directly influences my vote on the
issue. Had the district brought an actual cost effective solution to the voters
I think the Grand Jury, CoCoTaxpayer Association and even I would have
supported it. This new tax measure, in a difficult economy, increases the
services being offered by moving the paramedics from the County's books to the
district's, and doesn't fix the budget mess. You guys will be right back here
asking for more money later and with the expanded services it will be even more
expensive. The fact that you and the union have agreed to put of contract talks
until after the election says it all. The community and the firefighters
deserve better!
BTW, what came of the separation discussions
that you supported?
You and john need to get it straight. If the eccfpd is in such bad shape that no more money should go there until it fixed, why are you saying Brentwood should unfund cops to give the eccfpd more?
You guys just are haters and tightwads and want someone else to pay your way. If you had a cogent message, you wouldn't have to keep repeating conflicting ones
But to comment about Brentwood Police and the secret funds that are now public knowledge. Yes, they should at least split the money between fire and police. If you know anything about this money, Brentwood did provide $600,000.00 annually for the fire district and then pulled the money. Why do you think that is ? Maybe they know it is broken too. Are you saying that Brentwood believes the police are a better investment than fire? You need to ask the city council that, but if the shoe fits..... When a real solution is presented and not a bandaid I will step up and support it even after you bad mouth me. Until then No on $.
I also respect the comment that Brentwoodstu made.
I'm pretty sure Brentwood was giving the cccfpd money out of its general fund which it is free to do. they had to because they had spent the CFD money on cops. They were putting 600k into something that needed millions and even if they kept paying more it wouldn't be the no-tax cure your looking for. I can see where your probably mad because it made the day you would be asked to pay for yourself come sooner.
I want to be up front about why am responding to your posts, it is not to convince you to vote yes on Measure S, that ship has long sailed. I respond to your comments with information for voters that may be undecided and are looking for factual information to help them decide. Despite the your personal attacks on me and my knowledge of the Brentwood and the ECCFPD I will continue to counter your shoot from the hip statements that cannot be substantiated.
All references to Brentwood CFD’s , how they are collected and how the revenue is spent can be found on the City of Brentwood website, that is where I look to confirm any information before I quote it. The information is not secret and is public information; I have personally used the city website for information long before being elected.
Now let me answer a few points;
@ECR
1) Your claim that I implied anything was illegal about Brentwood paying for the addition of a Firefighter to Brentwood engines for a short time is false. If you read my post to John G again you will see that I quoted the City Of Tracy official from a newspaper article that John G was using as an example of what ECCFPD should be doing.
2)Your argument that Brentwood receives “benefit” from the district and thus should contribute funds from CFD’s to the district for that benefit. I would argue that the Brentwood residents currently contribute to the district like the residents of Oakley, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Discovery Bay, Byron and Morgan territory/Marsh Creek. Asking Brentwood residents to pay more than their share, no matter what the source of the money is unreasonable. Measure S applies the benefit of improved fire service equally across the district.
3)Your mention of an “in house fire protection service” in Brentwood and my support of it. The City of Brentwood did explore what options would be available to them if the ECCFPD failed to move forward with a new revenue enhancement. Fortunately the board agreed to put Measure S on the Ballot and the Brentwood city council unanimously voted to support the measure and cease the pursuit of other options. I supported the effort to look for options to protect Brentwood residents.
Any “Brentwood only” fire option would require a new revenue source or parcel tax. How to raise new revenue would be decided by Brentwood residents and is not relevant to the discussion about measure S.
I firmly believe that Measure S and supporting the district is the best fire service option for Brentwood residents, I encourage the residents of Brentwood and the entire district to vote yes on S.
1) You said the article in the Tracy Press should have answered Mr. Gonzales' assertions about Brentwood’s CFD as supported by this quote:
"One option not available, Johnston (Tracy Finance Director) said, is the city pitching in more money than the formula allows.
“The city of Tracy cannot gift public funds, even to another public agency,” he said.
That’s also why, Johnston explained, money from the Measure E sales tax increase cannot be used to help staff rural fire stations, even though Tracy voters in 2010 passed the measure to preserve core public services.”
If you didn’t intend to imply that that illegal gifts of public “monies” and Brentwood’s CFD usage had any relationship then you chose a very poor quote to support your rebuttal. In any case, you have now clearly said that Brentwood receives “monies” that can be used to support fire services in Brentwood through the ECCFPD, that for some period of time in recent history Brentwood did, in fact, use these “monies” to support these ECCFPD services, and that Brentwood has since decided to cease this support for the district.
It’s good that we can all agree on this. There is no need for you to be defensive about any of it, at least not with me.
2) I never argued or implied that Brentwood “SHOULD” contribute monies (the Editor will not allow me to use the word “funds” on this forum). I merely said that Brentwood could do so if it wished and that I disagree with anyone who alleges such action would be illegal. I thought you had implied such action would be illegal (see #1) but you have corrected this misunderstanding, which I appreciate.
3) Your actions in support of Brentwood leaving the ECCFPD demonstrated the conflict of office issues that arise when Brentwood and Oakley politicians (elected city council members) are appointed and sit on the board of an ersatz independent special district. You and the entire board know this is inappropriate but have refused hold a legitimate election and conform to LAFCO requirements for “independence”.
As was reported in this paper, your point in exploring separation was that you needed to protect Brentwood based on the estimated 12 to 18 months it could take to create a new district through the Local Agency Formation Commission, which oversees the creation of special districts. The process would include negotiating with the county for current fire tax revenue collected from Brentwood, creating a service plan and securing the additional revenue needed from Brentwood residents in order to finance its own district.
I don’t fault you, as an elected politician in Brentwood, to take steps necessary to protect your electorate – Brentwood voters. However, no ECCFPD board member should ever work on behalf of a single stakeholder (Brentwood)lowering the lifeboat to escape sinking ship. As a ECCFPD you should be single minded in your devotion, focus and effort to protect the ENTIRE district.
As the Union said at the time, your move (exploring separation) was, in their opinion, premature and served to undermine public trust.
Oakley’s mayor Jim Frazier and fellow fire board member lost all trust in you and the Brentwood politicians. His words: “I have no faith in them anymore.”
Again, I don’t fault what did as a Brentwood politician. But you should not have put yourself in a position in which you had a conflict of office that would serve to undermine the fire district. And you, and the rest of the board should have already taken steps to correct this situation. Instead you and the board made a strategic decision to put of negotiations with the union, put off LAFCO independence, and put off an actual solution to the budget issues while you provide the voters with an all or nothing proposition that isn’t a solution. That, my friend, was a poor decision.
The community needs to Vote NO on $$$ so that the politicians can work towards an actual solution that will protect firefighters jobs.
I am going to say this again very slowly, the quote from Tracy was posted by John Gonzales and reposted by me.
I repeat:
I am going to say this again very slow, the quote from Tracy was posted by Jon Gonzales and reposted by me.
If you follow the thread you will see that the article that John posted and I reposted was a bad example he used to descripe a district that was doing the right thing going to two man engines.
Now let's be accurate about Brentwood's funding of a third firefighter.
From January 2003 to February 2007 Brentwood paid for a third firefighter at the two Brentwood stations.
The total paid for that four year period was $2,038,090.00 and this amount was budgeted from the General Fund.
NO CFD$! NO CFD$!
FYI-Before I posted I verified this information with the Brentwood department of Finance.
I have no problem with an elected Board, but before you jump for joy you may want to know that the first election will need to ask the voters of the district if they want an elected board, which will cost the district about $100,000 and if they say yes the next election the district voters would choose the members again $100,000. Before you go all willy nilly on my numbers, the exact cost of the election cannot be determined until the ballot is set, these are estimates.
And at the end of the day you will still have elected representatives that will live in Brentwood and they will stand up for their neighbors as I would expect them to do if they were from Bethel Island or Discovery Bay, its called democracy
"And at the end of the day you will still have elected representatives that will live in Brentwood and they will stand up for their neighbors as I would expect them to do if they were from Bethel Island or Discovery Bay, its called democracy”
No, Mr. Barr, that is not democracy.
First, Mr. Barr seems to be excusing his continuing conflict of offices that led to him heading up a special City of Brentwood subcommittee to explore his city (Brentwood) separating itself from our fire district on which he serves as a board member. Union Vice President, Gil Guerrero was unhappy enough with Barr’s actions to publicly complain that they served to undermine the fire district. Even fellow fire board members found these actions so distasteful and in opposition to the best interests of the fire district that they said they had lost all trust in him.
But here Mr. Barr manages to outdo even himself as he demonstrates a complete lack of concern for the oath of office that he, as an ECCFPD board member took to work on behalf of the entire district - not the city or neighborhood where he lives.
And the answer is: "When a politician accidentally tells the truth."
Alex, the question is: "What is a political gaffe."
In an interesting moment of unscripted candor Mr. Barr shows us he (and perhaps some of his fellow board members) feels their prime responsibility is not to the fire district as a whole, but to their own neighborhoods. This not only violates the oath he took but also explains why he and his city politicians closed stations in Discovery Bay, Byron and Morgan Territory and moved more resources into the stations in their neighborhoods.
It appears that the interests of the ENTIRE community have taken a back seat to the special interests of Brentwood for Mr. Barr. If he wants to continue his work on the fire district board he should take the oath of office again, and this time actually mean it.
I would assume that if the district goes to an elected bourd you will be filing papers for one of the director positions. You will need to use your full name and make yourself available for comments from the public. You will need to make decisions not always popular, but always in the best intersest of those you serve.
Before you run for election I suggest you spend some time and research how the 105,000 people will be represented. The current board composition is based on population, 4-Brentwood, 3-Oakley and 2-unincoporated. Now maybe the elected Board will be at large but I suspect that there is rules that will divide the district in equal areas and members will be elected from those areas, that is why I said board member would be from Brentwood.
To help you get a step up on upcoming election I have included the oath of office for you to practice and gain understanding. I appologize if you have held an elected office, but I guess not.
I (your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the
United States and the Constitution of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
I take the oath very seriosly and I don't see where it says, don't fight for the rights of your neighbors and stand by your convictions.
Local 1230 must stop its threats
Vince Wells, president of Local 1230 of the firefighters' union, is threatening East Contra Costa County residents with reduced fire services and higher homeowners' insurance premiums, if Measure S is not approved.
I didn't know he was an insurance broker.
Local 1230 made similar threats during the Pinole recall in 2007-08. The union hired a phone-banking firm in San Diego to call Pinole voters, mostly senior citizens, and tell them fire services would be compromised if the recall passed. The recall passed, and compromised fire services proved to be an empty threat.
Contra Costa County has negotiated new contracts with 90 percent of its employees, including firefighters.
In Pinole, though, contract terms were imposed on firefighters when Local 1230 refused to budge on increased firefighter contributions to their own pensions, to which they had contributed virtually nothing for years. Salary reductions weren't even on the table.
The Pinole City Council imposed contract terms. Wells told the council that it did not care about public safety.
Local 1230 must stop threatening people it's supposed to serve.
Jeff Rubin
Pinole
This is in todays cc times paper
Did you read the whole article this time? Last time I looked the Board of Directors of the ECCFPD on May 7th received two potential service models if measure S fails;
1) Close two stations and reduce the remaining four stations to two firefighters with Basic Life Support (BLS) per engine, total of eight Fire fighters per shift.
2) Close three stations and have three fire fighters with BLS per engine, total of nine fire fighters per shift.
OR
VOTE YES ON S
Six Stations, three fire fighters per engine with Advanced Life Support (ALS, Paramedic) six engines, eighteen firefighters per shift.
Vote Yes on S
John, If you really care about the Fire Fighters as you have repeatedly stated, maybe you should consider their safty when no one is coming to back them up if Measure S fails.
Figures you would post this letter. I often have referred to Jeff as the J Gonzales of Pinole. You both have put your personal agenda's against the fire fighters and politicians who have opposed your ideas in front of what is best for your community. You both use the same strategy of vilianize the fire fighters by referring to them as the "union", and opposing anything we support and cloak it as "in the best interest of the community". Then neither of you run for office!
One difference though is that Jeff actually does attend the meetings.
You hate the fire fighters of East County because they opposed the Paid on Calls, and Jeff's bone with the fire fighters of Pinole is we supported the candidates that he and his group had recalled. Now he demands the allegience of those who replaced the recalled council members and uses that to fight anything that the fire fighters support, regardless of the benefit it would have on "his" community. You both master the strategy you accuse us of. Threats and misinformation.
There are four lies or twist in Jeff's letter, I will address them very briefly.
I am threating the community- I am spreading the word of what the yes vs no vote means. Yes, keeps and improves staffing and services. No means layoffs and staying closures.
Insurance rates- we have a letter from the current and previous insurance commissioners stating that the decrease in fire services will likely mean insurance rates will skyrocket.
Jeff says that we used empty threats about what would happen if the recall passed. We said fire protection would be jeopardized. They have since lost half of their fire protection. They went from two fire stations to one.. empty threat?
The contract negotiations comments are an out right lie. We offered to pay the employees cost in the first week of negotiations. The imposition was not based on that at all. That's what happens when you are on the loosing side of a recall election.
Back to Measure S- It is not about me, you, or Jeff, it is about the safety of the community.
I have been one of the voices of support for Measure S and have provided the community with what would happen if Measure S fails. I have supported the information written on the ballot statement. Read it! It says that the parcel tax would prevent lay offs and station closures. I have expressed that extensively. I was there when the citizens of Discovery Bay and Morgan Territory came to the fire board meeting, saying " you didn't let us know this was going to happen" you should of gave us the opportunity to do something about this before closing our stations". This was despite all the news articles, news broadcast, community meetings, and mailings. That is the goal of our campaign. We are out letting the community know what is going to happen if Measure S fails. You are spreading you personal agenda, attacking us and the politicians as you always do. If you don't believe they will close the stations then why don't you focus on that. I have been told they will close, I have been involved in lay off negotiation meetings, and have attended all meetings in which the options have been discussed. It has been clearly stated by those who govern the fire district, what will happen if it Measure S fails. If you feel we don't need 6 fire stations, then focus on that! You both choose to attack the messanger and not the message. Hopefully the responsible voters can see right through that.
If I can summarize your vote no message since you have started your no campaign what would it be again? I have gotten lost in the rhetoric. I believe it is vote no because the union says yes, or the board is corrupt, or we don't support POC's, or because Tracy had another idea, or is it Brentwood is stealing money, or is it because you don't like the board of supervisors? Or all of the above?
Vote Yes on Measure S. It will keep your fire stations open, prevent layoffs of half of your firefighters.
A No vote means that on July 1, Stations will close, fire fighters will be layed off. This will lead to increased response times, lack of adequate fire personnel, and increases to home and business insurance rates based on inadequate fire protection.
I have documents that support everything that I have said over the past three months. Do you?
Yes on S, please get the facts!
No, No, No, on $$$$$
Being a former Knightsen paid on call firefighter I hope this will carry a little more weight. I am forever indebted for the opportunity to have joined Knightsen Fire and served to have served my community. This gave me place to start my career and I won't forget where I came from, but at the same time I can't forget where I am now. Looking back now to my years there I am reminded of the constant extremes. I recall going on house fires with E94 packed with 6 guys yet I also remember waiting 20 minutes for someone to show up at the station who had a license to drive the fire engine so we could go to a house fire in Bethel Island. The point I make here is that as a full time firefighter I would much rather have the choice of another full time firefighter living in the station with me who I know is going to be backing me up on a hose line than to gamble with having a paid on call as my backup. Will they or won't they show up? I have seen it go both ways. There are people I consider friends who are POC's but given the choice I would much rather have them not as POC's but rather have them employed full time with me so I and the public can guarantee they will be there at the time of an emergency.
As to how the union works I can tell you that it is not as interesting as it may seem. There is no brainwashing since all people in office are just fellow firefighters elected by the membership and by the beatings I have seen these guys take in meetings by members I would have a hard time believing there is any mind control going on here. Vince and the other representatives work hard and have a thankless job. They get beat up by the public for saying they have too much power and then they get beat up by fellow union firefighters by asking why they don't have the power to get better wages and working conditions. I really respect them for taking on the job.
I personally feel that this county did a sub par job in the transition from volunteer to full time fire departments. A lot of opportunities were missed to put into place the funding needed to support a fire department to match the population boom. Many feelings were also hurt a long the way. I can understand how many former POC's can be angry that they were never given the "thank you" they deserved for putting their lives on the line for so many years. I hope that someday we will celebrate the contributions of all the volunteer/POC's by hosting reunions in the stations. This is a goal I would like to see happen so that we can appreciate our past while looking toward the future.
I know this has become an emotional issue but I hope my this can help you see that as a full time firefighter I want a dependable, well trained crew to work with that can provide the best service to the public and allow me to go home alive in the morning. I also want to work the same hours and be compensated close to what our surrounding fire departments get. In order to reach these goals I along with my coworkers need to have a unified voice to speak for us. This is where the union comes in. Therefore the union and the firefighters are one in the same.
Robert, I agree with you 100 percent. I know that relying on POC's as first responders had to be dealt with eventually. That does not mean they can't supplement. I also am not against this tax because of that. The tax is poorly assembled and does not do enough to correct the critical issue of overspending unless the union and the BOS/Commission show they are serious by reforming the root cause. You, I, the BOS, The Union, and the Firefighters know what the problem is and fail to step up to the plate just like asking the taxpayers to do. This is why the union postponed negotiations. Why didn't they just show good faith and prove to the public they were serious about reforming the root problem? No, they decided to hold a better position to bargain higher if the tax passes. That in itself is disingenuous. You are also correct that the BOS and the Cities dropped the ball on mitigating funds for the district while allowing development. This is what upsets me about Brentwood. They formed the benefit assessment districts because of the development they approved thus causing the understaffing of fire yet they will not share the burden they created. They even have the extra tax funds collected to do it with. As someone stated from Morgan Territory, that area pays thousands more in tax revenue right now than it costs to keep sunshine station open year round. So, if they vote yes on this tax they are supplementing Brentwood's growth on top of the over collected amount it costs them for fire. They would be thousands ahead to form their own district and still not have to pay this new tax. To add insult the District was threatening to close their station. This is why people are upset over the threats. The paramedic part of the tax is also problematic. Paramedics can be added later when the district is in better financial health. To make that transition now when we already pay for them in another tax is wasteful and not prudent. If the District, the Cities, and the BOS want to be upfront and meet the public half way by showing they are serious on pension reform by action and not lip service, I will gladly support a tax. At this point the best solution that is union acceptable is forming a new county fire agency the same way they combine east county fire districts and Riverview in Antioch with ConFire. The way this tax is written is one sided and wrong. That’s all I’m saying. No on $ for those reasons.
Tracy Fire,
James Thoming, president of the rural board, said the move was not ideal but that it worked within the resources the district had.
“Three is better than two, four is better than three, but in our financial situation, two is better than none,” he said.
Read more: Tracy Press - Down to two
|
3 Hours Ago
Tracy has volunteers. Union firefighters oversee the program and feel volunteers are a necessary asset, especially with reduced staffing. Many full time Tfd firefighters came from the volunteer program as well.
Wow, At least Tracy thinks responsible and within budget. We should too. No on S its a waste of our tax dollars the way it's written.
Thanks John for sharing this. Reading our kcal newspaper one gets the idea that two man crews were not even an option being considered in this day and age. Turns out folks a few miles away are doing that...
Jon G,
Thanks for the article from the Tracey Press. I admit I don't know much about the details of the Tracy Rural and Tracy City arangement there was a few points that I picked up from the article. A sugestion John in the future when you copy and paste you could make a distinction between the news article and a blog comment, I know you would not want to mislead the public.
First of all the ECCFPD already has reduced two of the six stations to two man crews. That decision was made by the District Board 2 years ago, before Tracy Rural. Maybe they were learning from ECCFPD.
Second, two possible service models were presented to the ECCFPD at the last meeting;
1) A four station model with two firefighters per engine.
2) A three station model with three forefighters per engine.
The decision of which model will most likely be made at the June 11th meeting if Measure S fails followed by appropriate staff reductions based on the model.
You call the three or four station plan a threat, when accually it is what you are asking for, the board to to act "responsible and within budget". Measure S takes an additional step in that the Board wants the public to have the opportunity through the freedoms allowed us, to vote and speak freely. That freedom also allows the majority of the voters to decide who will who will represent them. Asking the voters what they would like the the fire district to provide them is not irrisponsible, it's about choice and I choose to pay $197 to have six stations with ALS on each engine.
Your choice is just that yours. You may want to blame the fire board and the BOS for Measure S and your ultimate decision, but in the end after the votes are counted those that you are most critical of will need to follow the direction given by the voters and their decision.
PS are you suggesting by using Tracy Rural that Brentwood and Oakley have a different level of service than say Knightsen, just asking?
Again you are missing the boat here. The problem is union pension, overhead costs, and duplication of services. This new tax would dump good money into extending the real problems. You do not even mention any of those. You insinuate with the threat of doom. Even Mr. Wells is starting to think that maybe you and him along with the BOS should have addressed these issues in more depth before asking voters to bail out the waste with their hard earned dollar. I like your comment about misleading the public. That is all this entire pro S has done is mislead. What's more troubling is the list of politicians and government workers that are displayed as suppoting this new tax. I would too if my check was from the government and I was dependant on tax revenue. Why do you think this country is in the mess it is? No one wants to take true fiscal responsibility. The problem is that the public taxpayer is hurting, losing their homes, going without, not paying the their bills while government wants more and does less.
No on S
This tax is not good because it does not correct any core problems but rather adds duplication of services at an unnecessary cost to the tax payers.
I'm sorry I upset you with the information that your City can help the fire district but chooses not to. I don't blame them a bit. I would not want to throw good money into a money pit too. If you want to be successful in leading your City or your Fire District you must be honest with yourself and the public. You also need to take politics out of our fire district as it is affecting the progress of the department by restricting solutions.
In closing to answer your last comment. The Knightsen Station did have a different level as you say of service until the union got a hold of the station. The 20 POC's were run off. That action actually hurt the district more than it helped because those full time positions could have been applied to more urban areas. Instead, the political union machine pushed out all the POC's. Good job union, but don't ask me to pay more for that power grab. All firefighters here and abroad do great service and I commend them. It's the union and politics that have ruined this district.
Since the union will only except certain alternatives to fix the district ( example; no POCs, paramedics on engines not in their own quick response vehicles, three on an engine, and all the other things they can politically control the district with) the only solution is a new reorganized county fire district. This will satisfy the union, provide equal pay for the firefighters, give equal service to the citizens, reform the pension problems, maximize management and overhead costs, and work within the budget provided.
That budget would be close to $ 100,000,000.00 dollars and we would not need to raise taxes. Therefore, No on S
I was responding to your comment about Tracy Rural/City FD, It would have been appropriate to read the article before you post it as a solution for ECCFPD. If you had read the article you would have answered your own accusation about Brentwood CFD and funding of the District, Here is a quote from the Tracy Press;
"One option not available, Johnston(Tracy Finance Director) said, is the city pitching in more money than the formula allows.
“The city of Tracy cannot gift public funds, even to another public agency,” he said.
That’s also why, Johnston explained, money from the Measure E sales tax increase cannot be used to help staff rural fire stations, even though Tracy voters in 2010 passed the measure to preserve core public services.
Read more: Tracy Press - Down to two Tracy Press;
John this is the first time since 1978 and the passage of prop 13 that the voters of East County have had the opportunity to say what they expect their fire depatment to look like. The choice is not complicated, vote no and the message is clear that the district needs to live with the current level of funding received from the district share of the 1% AV.
Vote yes on S and the residents and businesses of East County will have funding for six stations with three FF on each engine including ALS.
Mr Wells gave an excellent explanation of how a second tier for new employees would effect the districts budget and I aggree with him that the second tier will help with long term savings but it will take time to realize those savings. Even if the contract negotiated included the second tier it would not help the current shortfall without closing stations.
If the voters say no and the stations are closed the only hope to reopen them is for the AV to return to pre recesion amount, which could be a very long time.
Protect your family and your property
Invest in your community
Vote YES ON S!!
So are you accusing the City of diverting public funds when it gave $600,000.00 to ECCFPD for fighters ? Quit twisting words sbarr. I do not think anyone has diverted funds and I do think that the five special benefit assessment districts can be mandated for fire at the choice of the city council. (you only quoted 2-5 leaving out one so it could suit your answer) I do thank you for correcting my 1.5 million to over $3,000,000.00 that the city can use a partial or all for fire if they choose.
My comment was merely one of several options to ease the hardship of the district by using some of Tracy's ideas along with other ideas. The problem is your union will not let
any good ideas that are not approved by them. Instead they want more power by power grabbing our paramedic program we pay for already and now would pay for again. This is another reason to vote No.
sbarr, for you to say this is the first time since prop 13 asking for a new tax
is not true. In fact, each and every time a benefit assessment district is created a vote takes place. If this passes those people in those areas will be paying another tax for a third time. When development created this mess the politicians allowed the developers a free ride except for the Sheriff. That’s why you see a "P" district in Discovery Bay and no "F" for fire district in Discovery Bay. That is why you see five benefit assessment districts in your city but you choose to spend it on police, parks, and other things. When I was commissioner I pushed for the benefit assessment in Cypress Lakes that is only for Fire Suppression. It also was to build a new fire station at no charge. Some of this tax is to build another station but you haven’t even gotten the free station yet. The cypress area
is the only true committed benefit assessment district that is specifically for fire. That too had a vote to create it.
Sbarr, are you working for the best interest of the people or for the special interest? The people deserve a better plan. So do our firefighters for that matter. No on $
There is no CFD #1, only 2-5. Again I gave you an accurate statement without any twisted words.
When the residents of Brentwood ask the Brentwood City Council to reduce the amount funded for our police and instead fund fire, it would be considered.How the revenue from Brentwood CFD's is spent is in the best interest of Brentwood residents,Surely not how someone from Knightson thinks it should be spent.
The $600,000.00 you mentioned and did not specify for what, most likely was for the addition of a third firefighter to a Brentwood Station when the staffing was only two. That would be consistent with the Tracy plan where revenue generated in the city would need to spent in the city, not in the county or other special district. I hope that is clear enough for you I don't want you to accuse me of twisting the words.
I don't understand the quote in this article that State law must be changed for pension reform, particularly the introduction of changes for new hires. What are the names of these specific laws?
How have other police, fire, special districts and cities all around Contra Costa County and California been introducing second-tiers for new hires, going to the highest salary over three years and not one to help eliminate spiking, increasing contributions to pensions, increasing age of retirement and contributions to other post employment benefits such as medical coverage?
Just this week a writer for the Los Angeles Times reported on pension changes in Southern California titled "Newport Council approves pension changes for firefighters". It states "With increased contributions and a less generous retirement plan, Newport joins a growing roster of California cities reforming and pensions and saving long-term employment costs.":
http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-0523-nbcouncil-20120522,0,3781433.story
We are looking to add 15 new firefighters if Measure S is passed. Even small changes to pension and post employment benefits must make a difference to the amount of employer contributions are which taxpayers pay for.
You raised several points that I can address regarding, the ten year plan, new hires, and the pension tier.
The ten year plan was put together as a road map to where the district wanted to go if the tax is successful. Unfortunately when it was written, it was when the tax had a 5% cola escaltor. That was changed to 3% after public input. Unfortunately the plan was not modified accordingly and now it has created this debate. Realistically, the fire district does their budget annually. Regardless of what the ten year plan says, they would be able to adjust to the economy. If delaying the hiring is necessary, they could do that. Just, like the paramedic program; it has not been negotiated yet with the county ems. There is a chance that the district can get funding for the medic program like the other districts do. The plan also makes assumptions on retirement costs, assessed value, and increases in medical cost, all these are estimates. The people that are against Measure S would find something wrong with the plan no matter how it was written. The primary purpose of the tax is to keep the fire stations open.
Our contract negotiations start immediately following the elections regardless of if it passes or not. We are aware that a second tier is a major concern for the public. Again, the 10 year plan makes the assumption that there are no changes. That is the most honest way to write out the plan. I can assure you that the fire board and the union have been above board and are working together for fiscal sustainability despite certain peoples desire to make us all look like crooks. The increase in revenue was a necessity since the district was formed. This is well docomented. The money runs out in July, so the tax is the first priority.
If the tax passes, all would see that they are not being duped.
Our retirement is in the CCCERRA system. We are not in CAL PERs. Anytime a new tier is created, it must go through the legislature to have the retirement tier added to our system. We are called a 37 act system. A new "safety tier" has been negotiated with most of the county employee bargaining groups. That new tier is being carried by Senator DeSaulnier. The groups on the bill plan to go to it starting January 2013.
As the union President all of the IAFF unions in the state get together quarterly to discuss issues effecting our profession. Many agencies are agreeing to make changes and to create second tiers for new hires. We have done so within our other jurisdiction and are in the process of negotiated second tiers in all agencies with open contracts. FYI, the 37 act retirement employees have always paid more for thier retirement then CAL PERS. So many of the PERS agencies such as New Port and the other agencies you mentioned, are just catching up. Most of the Local 1230 represented agencies pay the employees share and a portion of the employers share. It is for this reason that looking at another tier can be mutually beneficial to the employee and the employer.
Hope this helps!
Yes on S!
Keep in mind at least 70% of firefighters do not get paid at all and the national pay averages come from city and metro areas that are typically even less rural than CCC. So your statement about this area's cost of living is completely negated by the nature of the comparison.
In CA alone I can tell you that ECCFPD is paid more than some places that I have lived that are way more costly than E. CCC.
These are facts that you can look up or you can continue to suck up the union spin.
It appears NYFD pays less than here.
Benefits and Salary for EMS Members
EMT Salary Information*
EMT Salary:
Base
Starting Salary
$31,931
After 1 Year
$33,740
After 2 Years
$34.341
After 3 Years
$39,764
After 5 Years
$45,834
Back to Top
Paramedic Salary Information*
Paramedic Salary:
Base
Starting Salary
$43,690
After 1 Year
$48,127
After 2 Years
$50,091
After 3 Years
$55,255
After 5 Years
$59.079
Firefighter Salary:
BASE
FRINGE*
TOTAL
STARTING SALARY
$39,370
$3,704
$43,074
AFTER 1 YEAR
$41,311
$8,159
$49,470
AFTER 2 YEARS
$44,995
$8,886
$53,881
AFTER 3 YEARS
$49,494
$9,775
$59,629
AFTER 4 YEARS
$54,556
So NYFD_fan you are full of it and so is your good buddy. Your last comment is really telling how greedy of a person you are. Stay as a NYFD groupy because thats about the only thing that is true in your post. NO on S....
And John glad to see you're still hard at work here, I appreciate you posting the salaries over there in New York, just don't forget to include that they work with 3x the number of personnel.
Brentwood has money for fire suppression but chooses to use it on libraries, police, and recreation. None of the funds go to Fire. So if you are a resident that is in the City of Brentwood and is within one of the five CFD's (Community facility districts) you will be shelling out for a third time more taxes if you pass measure S. You will also continue to pay county taxes for medical services and loose the quick response vehicles and their paramedics.
Here is a section of the exact wording from the City document in one of the five CFD's that brings in over 1.5 million dollars and NONE of it goes to the fire district.
SERVICES
The following services to be provided in the CFD are in addition to those presently provided in the territory of the CFD.
I. Fire Suppression and Emergency Medical Services.
a) Fire fighting and emergency medical service personnel salaries, benefits, and other associated operations and maintenance costs which are needed for the daily activities and normal employment of these types of personnel.
This really sums up that even the City of Brentwood has chosen not to contribute with Facilities District taxes collected to the ECCFPD.
This entire tax is a political nightmare game with our safety. The people are being used for political purposes rather than the true need. They would rather send the CFD dollars
( $1.5 million dollars ) to Parks, Police, and Libraries. My priority would be Police and Fire first. Instead let’s ask for more money to pay down the 11,000,000 million dollar pension hole we made. At the same time they want to send our paramedics and their emergency response vehicles away that we already pay for in another tax!
Send this tax back with a NO on S.
God bless our firefighters. Shame on the Politicians, BOS, and the Union.
.
I find it interesting that now you are attempting to rally support for your no on S campaign by suggesting that the Brentwood City Council is not spending CFD revenue for the purpose it was collected. As usual you cherry pick the facts that suit your claims and leave out any facts that contradict. Based on the 2011-2012 Brentwood General Fund Budget, revenue from CFD 2-5 was $3,036,000.00. As you have stated and I agree, public safety should be a priority for Brentwood, it will please you to know that $3,000,000.00 of that revenue was budgeted to the Police department leaving a grand total of $36,000.00 for other uses.
With that said you may have a difficult time gaining any support for your personal attacks on my understanding of what Brentwood is doing for or not doing for the Fire District. I stand by my statement that Brentwood does not have a “Fire Fund”.
As for this particular article, much like the information being put out by the measure S campaign and the firefighters union, it is deceitful with a wonderful play on words.
ECCFPD is not just getting prop 13, 7 cents on the dollar, revenue. They have since had numerous other sources of added funding in the form of developer funding and some homes in the district paying additional taxes to the fire department already. They've taken all this added money and irresponsibly spent it all.
The fact that CDF was briefly considered but quickly dismissed (no surprise that the firefighter union opposed it) seems to be a fall back in attempt to prove that other options were evaluated. As others here have mentioned, there are many more options and avenues that could have and should have been explored but never were, for one reason or another, but all probably with one thing in common, the union opposed it because it did not benefit them.
The paragraph regarding paramedic service is just deceitful and misleading. Allow me to reference it,
"...If S passes, it will ultimately provide six paramedics in the district, which currently relies on three paramedics in quick response vehicles (QRVs) from American Medical Response for advanced lifesaving services."
To the general public you make it seem that this district only has 3 paramedics covering it. You have completely left out the numerous ambulances in service in the district every day, 24/7, which the QRV's are in addition to. There are more then just 3 paramedics in QRV's that provide advanced lifesaving services.
"...augmented by the paramedics the public has said it wants on fire engines."
The same general public that probably doesn't realize that there are already dedicated-to-medical calls first responder QRV paramedics, and that despite what personal stories someone will tell you, studies done on a national and global level in regards to the most effective and beneficial EMS systems with the highest long term patient survival outcomes shows that first responder paramedics are actually being shown to be a detriment, instead a tiered response being proven to be better. Also, when compared to other developed nations, how our system of fire-based EMS is known as an epic failure and horrible system. Try giving people all the facts, all the information, actually educating them, and then see if they still have the same opinion. It's easy to say people will want more paramedics when they think that more is better and don't know that as far as an EMS system goes, when you add numerous paramedics you do indeed begin to substitute quality for quantity.
Lastly,
"Nine firefighters and three fire engines are not enough to answer the 6,000 calls per year the ECCFPD gets from 105,000 district residents over 250 square miles, but that’s what will be left if Measure S fails."
More misleading, play on words information. How many of those 6,000 calls per year when broken down are actually medicals versus false fire alarms, smoke investigations, odor investigations, broken fire hydrants, and actual fires. We know right off the bat that probably around 4,800 of those calls are medicals which the ambulance provider AMR and it's QRV's have been handling for years. Truth be told, a large majority of these calls probably don't even require fire department response, and of those that do a large percentage of those are probably just for the assistance of moving the patient onto the ambulance cot. For the calls that actually require them to do something medical, any critical interventions are already covered by not only QRV's, but police officers as well (high quality CPR and timely defibrillation in cardiac arrests). Of the remaining 1200 calls, how many of those are actually real, honest, working fires that require an actual fire crew and not just a person with a garden hose or fire extinguisher?
If this system was run effectively, with EMS separate, which has been proven to be more effective and lead to better patient outcomes when structured correctly and the fire department just focusing on, well, *fire* protection then I actually don't think we'll be too bad off with 3-4 fire stations. Supplement that with some paid on call and we'll actually begin to have a system that is a leader. One in which the best known EMS structure is utilized and carried out with well seasoned, clinically experienced paramedics responding to medical calls and the fire departments actually focusing on fires.
You lecturing fire on deployments is as valid a short order cook lecturing a heart surgeon on how to do his job.
Somewhere in the middle there you went from beating your chest about your importance to saying ALS is a detriment. All in the span of two paragraphs.
Last night a 50 acre grass fire threatened homes near Bethel Island. Stocking up on garden hoses and fire extinguishers and claiming that is sufficent to defend against such contingencies is about as silly as it gets.
Leave the fire coverage questions to people who understand the science. Only 5% of this assessment is related to your concerns of personal job security. The importance here is focused on keeping stations open and people as a whole safe.
I thank you Gavin for your educated experience and impute on this. Just like the fact that the City of Brentwood has five benefit assessment districts that can be used for fire funding and the press keeps it a secret.
This new tax is so inflated with political and union jelly. No on S .. send it back No on $
It money wasted for union benefit.
Are you the union president for AMR? I know you’re not, but based on how you portray the unions as using scare tactics, misinformation, and threats to get what they want, you fit the description. Let's get the facts straight. Measure S is not about QRV's. Do you work on one or something? It is a nice strategy to confuse voters and get them to support your campaign for a no vote. There is nothing in the Measure or 10 year plan that says the QRVs will go away. If there comes a time when those discussions arise, show up and voice your opinion. You are encouraging the closure of fire stations because you think the QRVs are going away? Measure S is about closing FIRE STATIONS and laying- off FIRE FIGHTERS. It is about having enough resources to get to a fire or emergency on time to make a difference. There is nothing about AMR employees or QRV's in the measure. If you say that, then you are the one using scare tactics. Where does it say that? Read the ballot statement. It says to avoid station closures and laying of fire fighters. It says they will add paramedics. It doesn't say they will take them away. Where are you getting that from? So, as you tell everyone else to get educated or accuse others for spreading false information for their own personal gain, practice what you preach.
We have already had lay-off negotiations with the District. Unless the fire board is lying to us, they are laying off fire fighters and closing stations in July if Measure S fails. The MONEY will be gone. Period. All of our efforts have been put forward to keep stations open and improve staffing. This is not about the evil Board of Supervisors, unions, or pensions. Pensions are being addressed at the bargaining table and the Board of Supervisor is an elected position. Run for a seat if you don't like the decision being made. Don't confuse that issue with Measure S.
Based on your information about the lack of need for fire fighters, I guess if the Measure fails, we will see. What ambulance are you on? You have honestly never been on a call where you needed the assistance of a fire crew? For someone who works in the field, you made some statements that sounded like you don't have much experience. J Gonzales declared you as an expert.
Fire Stations are placed in the community primarily for fire protection. It doesn't matter if there is 1000 fire calls, or 50? You know this right? AMR has some ambulances that run multiple calls and some that run very few; it depends on where they are located. Gavin, the system is set up so that if someone calls 911 for a fire, a hazardous spill, a medical, or any other miscellaneous emergency, the appropriate resources are dispatched to them right away. I use to work on an ambulance in Mariposa County that sometimes went a week without a call. So your analysis about the 6000 calls sounds like something a laid person would say, not an expert. You even go as far as to minimize the calls we do go to. Is that because you are trying to put a "spin" on things to protect your position or do you need an explanation. Gavin, yes, many of the 911 calls we go on are not actual emergencies. Sometimes they are "just in case" calls that have potential, and sometimes they are minor incidents. Since you are an AMR employee I would think you would know this as well. How many times do you respond to a medical call that turns about to be nothing that requires an ambulance? All of us know that happens all the time. We are here for the ones that are true emergencies. We are not here just for the false alarms or overzealous 911 callers, or the 911 abuser. If all of the calls you go on are true emergencies and you haven't experienced that, talk to one of your colleagues who has been around a while, they'll tell you.
The campaign you and your friends are running is dangerous to your communities. If Measure S fails, fire stations will be closed, response times will increase, and insurance rates will go up. Gavin, you will be very busy!
Yes on S
Myself and others are voting NO because there is no compressive plan in this county to fix the systemic financial problems with the two biggest (and most other) fire departments. Throwing in a bunch more tax money and giving lip-service to unspecific contract issues is not even close to a plan and will not fix the problems. The people running the FDs (and the union) have had years to address the same set of problems with little or nothing to show for all that time.
Why would anybody think that tossing in more money will all of a sudden cause them to tackle the tough issues they have long been afraid to go near? More money will give them breathing room and we can forget about our FDs ever achieving financial sustainability. And the FD employees can forget about ever truly achieving job security.
Elsewhere on this forum is posted my 14 point proposal to deal broadly with CCC FD financial problems. I doubt the proposal is perfect and guess what…..even if it only 60% on target is that much better than the NO plan at all brought forward by the politicos and the union.
How many people know that FD employees working in Antioch get paid about the same as NY City FD employees? How many know that this fire union and the BOS took steps to specifically eliminate all firefighters who were not full time union? We hear all the union talk of how poorly ECCFPD pays its people but did you know they pay right at the national average for full time fire fighters (that average wage is derived mostly in cities and metro areas, not small towns)?
It is truly too bad that fire stations will close when Measure S fails. But it is not the fault of the NO voters, it is the fault of the people in control who never acted when they had the chance and it is the fault of those who put this measure on the ballot with no plan behind it.
Unlike what you are being told I don't think all three of the doomed fire stations have to completely close. Quickly the county could do a bridge loan, the shift structure could be changed, less than 3 person crews could be run to better serve medical calls and I'm sure the professionals could come up with other interim steps if they truly wanted to. The problem is I doubt they want to.
I'm voting NO so to save our fire departments on a long-term basis.
"With current post-employment benefits locked in, pension reform must take the form of a “second tier” of benefits for new hires. State law must be changed to make that possible..."
How are many other public agencies in Contra Costa County and around California (such as Newport Beach firefighters this week) able to introduce new tiers?
I am also curious how much would be saved in employer contributions, and by when, if new tiers where introduced for the 15 firefighters Measure S will engage if they came in at say 2.5%at50 or 3%at55 compared to the current 3%@50?
Also, what is the reason for the Other Post Employment Benefits pre-pay retiree medical per employee costing $6,387 in 2011/12 increasing to $26,229 in 2021/22?
For the record, I am prepared to pay more than the $197 a year to secure a long-term solution for my family and community but am concerned this is nothing but a bandaid.
This Editorial also did not put the new tax is proper perspective. Some like to hide the real magnitude by dividing it down to a weekly or daily amount...you can play games with the numbers all you want but what matters is the real magnitude of the total cost. With this tax a community the size of DB (about 5,400 homes) will be paying in at least an additional $10,000,000.00 and that does not buy any commitment for any level of service. And as many have pointed out this new tax will eventually cause the separate AMR paramedic with a Quick Response Vehicle stationed in DB to be removed....this will be a huge loss. I recall specifically, when my son was injured at school it was this AMR vehicle that was first to the scene by more than a trivial amount of time. It was this AMR paramedic who provided all of the treatment. What if the fire engine had been on a fire call and this AMR vehicle did not exist? DB has a large population center and is a long way from the ambulance base...this AMR Quick Response Vehicle needs to stay and is way better than having the third person on the fire engine being the only paramedic in the area.
Sorry to say it must be pointed out that this Editorial contains misleading information. It was written to lead one to believe that if you live in the ECCFPD your tax allocation for fire is 7%....I can say mine happens to be 20% more than what was stated (mine is 8.39%). Why would a misleading statement be included? Maybe for the same desperate reason the union has stooped to similar tactics.
NOW MY REAL POINT......
Outlined below is a 13 segment proposal to fix the CCC fire/EMS financial situation. This plan, although not perfect, does provide financial sustainability and firefighter job security. It will not be easy or overnight to implement and some will hate it but it is an all encompassing plan and nothing of this magnitude has been brought forward by the new tax proponents or the fire boards (why the heck not?).
Key point >>> this plan does not call for fire dept employees to do anything unique or have a comp plan that is not standard in typical city/metro paid full-time fire stations across the country.
1) Creat a brand NEW (not a merged) CCC county fire/EMS entity that will be the foundation for the savings necessary for financial sustainability and job stability going forward. This foundation will include at a minimum:
2) A tiered comp plan that does not exceed the national average even at the highest tier (former Con Fire people would be taking a definite cut, former ECCFPD people not so much ).
3) Meaningful pension and benefit reform. This a big deal and will have major impact further into the future.
3) Inclusion of POC/2-hat/reserve or other less than full time programs for strategic use and to supplement 2 person crews on a regular basis and to be the primary source of the 2nd (or 3ed) crew member in select regular station staffing scenarios (byron, knightsen, morgan, BI, DB# 2, BW# 2, and others that I do not have knowledge of. A target should be set that at any given time a certain percent of the staff on duty at stations (say 20%) would be something other than full time. The union will fight this like a wild dog as it cuts into their power base.
4) leveraging of management and administration including a reduction from current levels that exist in the separate FDs. Fewer heads will be needed by a more leveraged entity.
5) All county EMS oversight under one roof and under the administration of the fire chief. Starting/joining a regional EMS consortium (5 already exist in CA).
6) The BOS membership must give up multiple offices and 50% of their operations overhead $$ (they can make it up with office holder accounts) with the savings going directly to fire/EMS. This BOS contribution is very critical to union and voter acceptance.
7) Use of the most cost effective shift structure like Cal Fire uses. The union will fight this but it works for the largest fire department in the state.
8) Variable deployment/crew size strategies....the population centers get more, rural gets less.
9) Maximization of vendor support (such as Cal Fire and AMR) and vendor deployment. Max use of AMR to provide paramedic services (unless the new fire/ems entity can show a profitable business plan for providing additional services such as paramedic and or transport).
10) Strategic station brown outs (by time, by day, by season).
11) The potential for specific communities such as brentwood that have separate fire funds to 'juice' their basic coverage.
12) absolute commitment to implement P-zone/district like supplemental fire/ems revenue programs for new development in ALL areas served by the NEW county fire/ems entity (Pantages is a perfect example).
13) AFTER all the above is worked out, committed to and when implementation has commenced then and only then if more tax can be justified the voters can be asked to consider a new revenue (tax) measure (much much smaller than Measure S). BUT any new tax must have some form of automatic cut back if and when other revenue sources increase. The tax now before the voters will fail....a tax as proposed herein that is the last part of an overall plan will have a better chance to be approved by the voters.
Vote NO on Measure S and press those in control for a real solution such as the above 13 segment proposal.
Brentwood does not have a "fire Fund" to "Juice" up any fire service, nice try.
You want to be Mayor and you have no clue that the City of Brentwood has five benefit assessment districts that generate more than one million dollars and can be used for fire suppression?
You may want to postpone running for mayor until you know more about the city you plan to run. Your ignorance about this very important subject says you are being naive about many things in the area of fire funding.
No on S...... even "sbarr" has been duped.
But the fact is that such funds do exists and at the discretion of The City of Brentwood they can be used for fire services.
But rest easy Mr. Lemyre, the public knowing this doesn't doom the tax to failure. The reason the tax will fail is that it is too much money and won't solve the long term financial problems that the district faces.
It is good to see this information get out to not only the public, but also to Mr. Barr, who seems to have a keen interest in the topic.
Thanks Mr. Barber for offering an idea that may prove to be viable and also for helping educate Mr. Barr!
No on $$$
I do sincerely support and love our firefighters and for that reason I am voting No on S.
Here is a plug for Burke. Watch how he lashes out at anyone who disagrees with him. Here is him trashing Mr. Stonebarger of Brentwood. Link;
http://burkforoakley.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/stonebarger-should-resign-immediately-from-eccfpd-board/#comments
Here is a plug for The Press;
I commend you for taking an over the edge stance and preference on a new tax that pays down an eleven million dollars pension debt and moves our paramedic service from already paid for and run by another agency to the mighty political fire union.
In closing,
Everyone must look at the huge fire that occurred on Bethel Island. Unfortunately even at this level there was no salvaging of the homes. The firefighters and all who helped did save property from further destruction. That was a good job. But More importantly, If you pass this new tax and there had been any medical calls while all these engines were fighting that fire, those people needing medical would get screwed because the paramedics would be on those engines also fighting the fires. Today, if the tax does not pass you get both services in separate divisions and already paid for by your county taxes.
No on S. fix the real problem first before creating new problems.
Measure $ adds up to more than $100 million over 10 years. That means that $100 million in disposable income will be sucked out of far East County's economy in the next decade.
If you ask any local business owner how he's been doing since the Great Recession, he'll probably tell you it's been a struggle to survive. Now ask him what a $100 million hit to the local economy will mean to his business. He'll probably say he may have to go out of business. At the very least he'll probably have to further cut expenses, including his advertising budget.
The Brentwood Press, like other papers across the country, has been devastated by reduced ad revenue in recent years. This has led to smaller papers, employee layoffs, reduced or frozen salaries and meager benefits.
That is likely to continue if local businesses are forced to cut costs or fold up in response to a $100 million hit to their sales. Many people believe the Great Recession is still with us. Measure $ will help ensure that it never leaves.
The editorial doesn't cite a poll in which a majority of residents said they would be willing to pay $2,200 over 10 years for three firefighters/engine with one a paramedic.
I don't recall anyone asking whether fire district employees should be allowed to retire at 50 with a pension at nearly full pay for the rest of their lives.
I can't remember anyone saying they want ECCFPD's retirees to be more like ConFire's retirees, 180 of whom receive pensions of more than $100,000 per year. 40% of county government retirees receiving $100,000-plus pensions used to work for a fire district. The county's top pensioneer is, you guessed it, a former fire district employee, receiving $304,286 per year.
What people want is for ECCFPD to be a fire protection district. Instead it's evolving into a firefighter protection district and a retirement protection district.
No, contrary to this editorial, people never asked for this. But they will make their voices heard loud and clear on June 5th when this exorbitant tax hike known as Measure $ fails.
It's revealing that many firefighters and other Yes on $ folks feel the need to engage in insults. Ad hominem attacks are the lowest form of argument.
It doesn't reflect well on the Yes on $ cause that so many of them are so rude. It's not the best face to put before the public when asking them for $2,200.
Nice editorial and great job!
-Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
-Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury
-Contra Costa Times Editorial Board
Will ThePress' support sway voters? Probably no more than their 12 installments of "The Local Fire District and you..." that we haven't read over the last month. And I recall ThePress also supported developer backed Measure F in Brentwood which, despite massive funding failed at the hands of the voters. So let's not take their power of endorsement too seriously.
Even here ThePress admits this tax is not going to solve the problem. So then why would we want to throw more money into the pit and NOT fix the mess. Why GROW the service when we can't even afford what we have. And why take on EMS when the County already provides it at no extra cost?
The district is broken and needs to be fixed. No one is arguing that more money will do that. Even Brentwood City Councilman and ECCFPD board member Erick Stonebarger essentially says the current benefits of ECCFPD are “ridiculous”
Does anyone really think the union is going to be more ready/able to negotiate these "ridiculous" benefits AFTER the tax passes. Why would theY?
Let's send a message to the district. Put a solution in front of us, and make it one that we can afford.
Until then, No on $$$
Congressman John Garamendi
Congressman George Miller
State Senator Mark DeSaulnier
Assembly Member Susan Bonilla
Assembly Member Joan Buchanan
Assembly Member Nancy Skinner
Contra Costa County District Attorney Mark Peterson
Contra Costa County Supervisor Federal Glover
Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia
Contra Costa County Supervisor Karen Mitchoff
Contra Costa County Supervisor Mary Piepho
BART Director Joel Keller
Brentwood Mayor Robert Taylor
Brentwood City Council Member Steve Barr
Brentwood City Council Member Robert Brockman
Brentwood City Council Member Joel Bryant
Brentwood City Council Member Erik Stonebarger
Oakley Mayor Kevin Romick
Oakley Vice Mayor Carol Rios
Oakley City Council Member Pat Anderson
Oakley City Council Member Jim Frazier
Oakley City Council Member Randy Pope
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board Member Robert Kenny (Beth Island)
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board Member Cheryl Morgan (Morgan Territory)
Former East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board Member Chris Finetti (Discovery Bay)
Former Discovery Bay Community Services District Director and LAFCO Commissioner David Piepho
Contra Costa Central Labor Council
Contra Costa Democratic Party
United Firefighters of Contra Costa County, IAFF Local 1230
Tom Baldocchi, Jr, Knightsen
Michael Burkholder, Oakley
Joanne Byer, Brentwood
Gene Clare, Brentwood
Greg Feere, Chief Financial Officer, Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council
Heidi Mayer, Oakley