Firefighters’ Union Local 1230 Vice President Gil Guerrero Monday shows the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District board a sign urging approval of Measure S, a $197-per-parcel property tax the board has placed on the June ballot in far East County.
Photo by Rick Lemyre
Photo by Rick Lemyre
If Measure S passes, the district will hire additional firefighters and add paramedic firefighters to district engines. If the tax fails, the district must lay off half of its 48 firefighters, close three of its six stations, and restrict district medical services to the basic lifesaving level currently provided. Advanced lifesaving services in the district are now provided by American Medical Response paramedics under a separate agreement with Contra Costa County.
Local 1230 president Vince Wells said at Monday’s ECCFPD board meeting that it didn’t make sense to craft a new agreement now, not knowing how many firefighters the district will employ or what their training levels would be. Contract negotiations will resume in July once the fate of the tax is known, with particular emphasis on post-employment benefits.
“We understand that there’s a major concern about hiring new firefighters with all the same current levels of benefits,” he said, adding that the same concern exists countywide. “We are in discussions about pension changes in all jurisdictions we serve, including East County.” Local 1230 also represents firefighters in six other Contra Costa County departments.
Also at Monday’s meeting, Fire Chief Hugh Henderson said work continues on a “balanced budget” service model that would be implemented should the tax fail and layoffs be required. The model will show how resources would be deployed should the number of stations in the 250-square-mile district be cut to three, as well as coverage maps and estimates on the response times the scaled-back department would likely be able to provide.
The balanced-budget service model will also include the impact that fewer ECCFPD stations would make on mutual- and automatic-aid agreements with surrounding agencies. The district already draws assistance from nearby agencies about twice as often as it provides assistance in return, Henderson said.
We are never going to have a fire/EMS service that is viable in the 'new normal' economic conditions of this county until the BOS gets some guts or until the money runs out and the issue is forced.
Both county fire departments need to be scrapped and a new fire department with pay, benefits & overhead that can be sustained needs to emerge. A multi-step outline to get this done was long ago brought forward.
And before anyone comes back saying ECCFPD is already under paid .....please consider that a better argument can be made that all the fire departments you compare against are over paid. If just about every fire department can't meet payroll and if the unfunded liabilities are staggering....there is no other responsible resolution then to revise total compensation to levels that can be afforded.
Home valuations are not going to return to the ridiculous bubble levels and you can't keep adding on more and more taxes. This (escalating) $197 new tax is not even a comprehensive short-term fix let alone a solution to the problem. All it does is give more drugs to a drug addict.
Let's face it, when we need the fire department it is a really bad day and on that bad day we all want reasonable service provided by individuals with a acceptable level of competence. I am convinced when you factor out the special interests and the political stupidity there is enough or very near enough funding in this county to get the job done and make that job a decent/stable job choice for those who decide to do it at the compensation that will be available and sustainable.
Yes, to get this done it will require change and change is hard...but it has to be done sooner or later....there is no other real long-term solution.
I say because the county BOS failed to act when they should have the needed change is going to be harder but lets not give them any more slack. Let's make them earn their pay and tackle this hard situation.
Thank you for standing your ground.
After you have had some time to reveiw the CalFire RFP and compare it to the ECCFPD current revenue, could you please explain to me and others how and why this option should be considered.
I would hope that we can remove the CalFire argument as one of the ECCFPD Board "should of's and could of's". The district's structural problem is not solved by asking another agency to take over when the current Dept is providing a service to our community in the most economical way.
The option should be considered because it is factually less expensive AND the firefighters make more annual salary with a guarantee of the same job. How do I know? I was on the fire commission at the consolidation. I was also on the transition commission for ECCFPD. The difference between now and then is simple. We were provided a written quotation from Cal Fire. This showed the thousands in savings and putting three on every engine. Since our wondrous supervisor disbanded the transition commission the very same day a vote to secure a Cal Fire recommendation and replaced it until now, the district ran somewhat blindly because there was no local commission. Today there is only hearsay on a cost from CDF because no one in the political arena (not public voter arena) will explore a solid quotation. I can only conclude that the decision makers have been influenced by the union and are afraid of a lower cost quotation. It makes sense for the unions to be interested in protecting monthly dues, pensions, and income. This should not be the concern or responsibility of the voters to produce more tax money. It should be the leaders to explore every avenue to spend the public’s dollars wisely. These are part of my reasons for non support. Keep in mind that my opinion is based on dollars and where they are applied. In this tax case much of the tax will be applied in non crucial areas or duplication of services. Yes, there needs to be revenue for the Fire District but not at the expense of benefiting the union. Case in point is the paramedic part. We pay for them now; they are there now why is the tax asking for more money on this issue? Why change what is not broken? Another point is just mere shift schedule changing to mimic Cal Fire shifts by the local union is cost saving. No, this can’t be done, yet this is another union perk that is relevant to this increased tax. Also, why it is no one on the commission can even explain the $4.8 million dollars missing in the fifth year with the new tax projections and planned model. The only conclusion was to pay the unfunded eleven million dollars in red ink the district has accumulated in it short years of existence. These are facts that have lead to my vote of No on this tax. This does not mean a revisit with revised priorities would not change my support. Since the stage is already set the way the union and commission politically want it does not mean we have to support it. Again, this is only my opinion after much research and experience on the issue.
As lead negotiator and having served now two terms as President, I have negotiated contracts for this Local since 2006,for all of our jurisdictions. We all have different contracts.This includes pay, benefits, staffing, and pensions. We represent two cities, El Cerrito and Pinole. Both of these agencies are in the PERS retirement system. Moraga Orinda Fire District, Rodeo Hercules Fire District, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, and East Contra Costa County Fire District, are all in the CCCERA retirement system. All of us in the CCCERA system do not have the same retirement contributions or benefits. We all pay a significant amount more then our brothers and sisters in the PERs system. In fact, we pay the highest employee contribution in the state. These are facts that are easily researched.
Since 2008 we have not negotiated any new pay raises for our members. We have extended contracts without changes in some, and have taken pay cuts, benefit reductions in others. We have not fought against station closures, and have allowed our staffing to drop below our contract levels in order to help our jurisdictions maintain a adequate service level. We have also decreased the starting salaries in some of our jurisdictions. Our Local has been cooperative as we all struggle to get through these times.
East County Fire Protection District has had revenue problems since its inception. Many who post on this site are aware of that, but seem to have forgotten. Our problems were perpetuated by the market crash and housing market crash. The rise in pension costs is a result of the market crash not the cause of it. Pension contributions have remained constant prior to this event.
The Citizens of East County have been getting fire protection for half price since 2002. Please look around and check what fire budgets for other jurisdictions are.
The District proposes to close three of its 6 remaining stations in July of this year if Measure S does not pass. It is not the fire fighters pay or the pension costs that have driven us to this situation. Again, the fire fighters are making well below the market in salaries and cannot afford to take pay cuts as we have in other jurisdictions. You cannot cover 250 square miles and over 100,000 people with 8 fire fighters on duty. It takes a minimum of 16 for a house fire, and a minimum of 6 to cut someone out of a vehicle in a car accident. This means you won't have enough for one serious emergency incident.
If there is another "realistic" solution, please post it. Pensions cannot be changed for current employees, changes to the system won't be realized for 20 years plus, volunteers must be available, hired, trained, and outfitted, and would be unreliable in the heavily populated areas.The money will be gone by the end of this month. You can blame bad government, the union, or pensions, which gets you know where.
Get involved, get the facts about Measure S! A website has been established for Measure S, the address is: www.ProtectEastCountyFire.com
"If there is another "realistic" solution, please post it"
This statement is a very good example of the union ignoring what the public has been requesting. Why because they will lose money, power, and influence. Realistic solutions are several. The fact that the Board has not explored them can only be answered by the "union".
Example:
Benicia Fire has a very good cost effective program.
Cal Fire has been suggested several times
Paid on call reserves
Firefighter shift changes
None of these have been truly explored Vince, that’s not to mention the unnecessary paramedic dollars added to the tax that we already pay for and have.
Oh, and the guy below here who states to let my house burn down. That’s refreshing to hear. I hope Rick keeps that IP address so I can follow up if something does happen.
KnightRide comments below are another perfect example of why the union has been used in a derogatory way.
There are several reasons to vote NO. My stance has nothing to do with the Firefighters and everything to do with the way this tax has been assembled.
"Why didn't the board seek an actual proposal from Cal Fire?"
By using your example (Summerset IV meeting)Morgan Hill CalFire contract at $2.2m per year
CalFire 6 stations x 2.2 = $13,484,100.00
ECCFPD 6 stations (11/12) $11,083,474.00
total savings -2,400,626.00
(See page 40 of CalFire RFP to Morgan Hill to check my facts.)
Based on YOUR example the ECCFPD should have asked the taxpayers for $250 per year.
The CalFire RFP also would require equipment replacement $750,000,000 per year for 15 years and a 2.5% increase per year.
"Why didn't they propose a more modest tax increase?"
See above CalFire your solution
"Why didn't they solve the pension problem with the union before they came to the voters?"
I agree we need to find a sustainable way to provide pension and medical benifits for district employees and that is why the District and Labor have aggreed to extended the current contract until the results of Measure S are known. I would like to create a second tier for new hires and address medical benifits as we have done in Brentwood, talking about a second tier for new hires when the district may be facing layoffs seems inappropriate, thus the reopener in July.
"There will still be time to seek other solutions when this measure fails."
Really, easy to say for someone that will not be affected by closing half of the firehouses that serve my community!!
Good governance is making statements that can be supported by factual information and allowing the taxpayer to decide.
Responsible governance is taking the voters decision, yes or no, and follow through with presented plans.
It was the Fire District Board that gave a plan that expanded staff by 30% as the only choice for voters. There are others. Why didn't the board seek an actual proposal from Cal Fire? Why didn't they propose a more modest tax increase? Why didn't they solve the pension problem with the union before they came to the voters? There will still be time to seek other solutions when this measure fails.
Presenting the public with an all or nothing solution that doesn't actually "solve" the district's financial problems is not good governance.
I do not wish to engage in that type of dialog because it never gets us to any meaningful solutions. So let me springboard off of some of what Mr. Barr offered which will go directly to your concerns.
CalFire - Mr. Barr pointed out a couple of issues, but let me add one that is the complete deal killer. CalFire has reserve requirements that extend even further and this District in its current fiscal state is a complete non-starter for them. In fact, the District with the reserves they had when they were formed is a non-starter. Don't take my word for it, make some phone calls and ask yourself.
The question is why didn't your group research this previously before going to the extreme of including it in the opposition statement that will be on the ballot? You are suggesting an alternative that is completely unreachable and you have done a disservice to this community by offering that suggestion which only confuses the voters.
There is also the fact that you appear to be heavily relying upon a very old number from CalFire from when it was explored some 7 or 8 years ago. Their administrative costs have gone into full runaway mode since that time. All again fairly well known. So to rest your case on such unreliable and dated numbers is foolish. Again, making some phone calls will bear this out. You don't have to take my word for it.
Suffice to say that simple bit of remedial research on your part, which is not particularly time consuming, should put the CalFire argument to bed once and for all.
On the subject of pensions – Much has been done on this already. More will be done. Second tiers are already a fact of life in contracts that Local 1230 has been involved in, so you cannot dispute what I just said. Now results of such actions do not show up in actuarials or CALPERS reports or County reports on OPEB overhang for years. The pension problem did not manifest itself for many years. Decades, in fact. For you or anyone to suggest or expect that it be resolved over the course of just a couple of years, or heaven forbid, one contract negotiation effort is beyond absurd. One only needs honestly look at recent reports from the County and the 50% reduction in the OPEB liability in just a few short years to see progress has been made. If you read Vince Well’s comments above, you will see a clear indicator and willingness on the union’s part to work further in addressing this problem.
I am at a loss to understand what you or your organization are expecting over and above what has and is being done. If this is an instant gratification need on your part, then we are not even talking realistic in your expectations.
Not to sidetrack too far, but to address Millie’s comments: you left out the fact also stated in the CCTimes article that under no scenario is a wage increase on the table. Pass or fail, that is not up for discussion. So how can anyone fairly characterize this as a union boosting tax? Another fact that is not mentioned for whatever reason: the contract only extends this to end of this November. At that time, it is a clean sheet of paper brand new contract negotiation. The district is not locked into any long term agreement with this extension. If you read it that way, you misunderstood it. Again, don’t take my word for any of this, make some phone calls and ask the questions of the people who directly negotiated it.
On the subject of revenues being outstripped by costs – Mr. Barr made some good points on that already. Let me add a few things. People seem to have really short memories here. It was barely 60 days ago when people were complaining about the number “5” as being too big. Too much of a possible annual increase. They were afraid of that number and it had to be knocked down. So it was brought down to 3% instead. Keeping in mind that in both cases these are UP TO numbers. The Board will discuss and vote on actual increase figures on an annual basis based on the fiscal environment.
But it is completely ridiculous to argue 2 months ago for a reduction in the cap and then today argue that the cap is not sufficient to fill the needs. It is a problem of your own creation. Like shooting yourself in the foot and then complaining it hurts. Can’t we bring a little more big picture awareness and honesty into this debate?
There are overhead costs which are beyond the control of anyone in this district. To simply draw false lines in the sand and insist you are not paying another dime for costs that you don’t control is a recipe for disaster. Focus on the things you can control and stop beating your chest or making demands on the things you can’t. This district runs on a 1970s revenue model that was flawed from the start because it never had the flexibility build into it to address the area becoming the suburban community that it is today. This ballot measure, when you boil all the background noise away, is really just an effort to fix that decades old flaw in the revenue formulas. The only other way to alter the formula would require action in Sacramento, take years to wage the campaign, involved DOZENS of interest groups pulling different directions and have low probability for success. We are going the route of the lesser of two evils.
By the way, to those who just think the County can step in and fix this by just funding from the general fund: you are wrong. There would be immediate legal action on behalf of agencies who do draw from the general fund and who’s funding would be put at risk. Citing Prop 218 as their defense/offense. Remember, the County has no legal obligation to provide us with fire service. Police service/detention and emergency medical are their Big 2 mandates. Fire is not on the list and therefore not a candidate for general fund monies. The County is only involved as a pass through for the revenue and as the Board of Directors of last resort when a stand alone agency does not exist.
On the subject of a more modest tax proposal – Let’s be clear about one thing. This ballot measure is not perfect and will not satisfy all parties. No measure will. But do we throw out the whole thing and put the entire district into chaos? Is that really the responsible thing to do? Is that your ideas of good governance, Ms. Hunt? To put public safety at risk in pursuit of fiscal ideology? That, IMO, is completely reckless.
Isn’t it also true, Ms. Hunt, that you have stated to multiple people over the course of the last year that your organization would support a measure that responsibly address ALL needs of the district? Including the significant CAPEX needs to include a firehouse that is unsafe to inhabit? Didn’t you make that statement?
So what in the proposed $197 are you specifically objecting to?
- There are no wage increases proposed here
- Pensions are being addressed, but it’s a long road before anyone sees newspaper headline type results
- The proposal brings us closer to, but still not on equal footing with ConFire levels of service. Most importantly, it MAINTAINS current service levels and avoids catastrophic cuts in service.
On the subject of another ballot measure if this fails – I have to ask, Ms. Hunt, what are you looking at to come to that conclusion? If the measure fails in early June, the cuts go into effect less than 30 days later. The soonest you could turn around and do another ballot measure is November. That’s several months, at a minimum, of untenable fire coverage for the residents of East County. It must be noted again, that the primary people speaking out on behalf of your organization, to include yourself, Ms. Lack and Mr. Arne Simonson; none of you live in this district and none of you will bear the brunt of the cuts that will be necessitated. Fire station closures are not a “scare tactic”, as some have claimed. They are a fact that will be forced upon us by the fiscal reality. Stop trying to dupe the public with rhetoric. The 3 of you enjoy fire service that is at a much higher level than ours. Why are you treating us as second class citizens in terms of what we should tolerate or be will to accept?
Also related to your second ballot measure attempt: who are you proposing pay for that? The residents of a broke fire district? The elections office does not give out freebies for do overs. There is real money that will have to be spent on a second attempt. I’m assuming that CCTA is not pulling out their checkbook to cover it, so you are putting that on the residents of East County.
Finally, who is to say a second attempt even has a shot? I don’t have a finger on the pulse of the voters to know why they might vote no. Except for being duped by much of the misinformation that has been put out there and some of it by your group. Maybe they are saying “no way, now how” and will not vote for any tax increase under any circumstances. Your group has a tendency to promote just such a mindset these days. So what assurances are you giving us that we meet the 2/3 voting requirement in a round 2? Or does it just become a throwing good money after bad by a district who can least afford it?
Ms. Hunt, I think I have gone directly to the points you raised. If you have issue with any of these answers or dispute any of these facts, then let’s get after it and nail down the truth. But to date all I have seen you and your organization do is badmouth and condemn the people who are making an effort to find a compromise solution. They are doing the best they can under incredibly difficult circumstances to keep all sides reasonably happy. I have yet to see any specific proposals or ideas come out of your organization. The public deserves something a little more detailed than “fix the pensions” from you. Because when the facts are analyzed, people like Mr. Barr and the rest of the Board are making effort and progress to do just that.
I ask that you extend the courtesy to me that I extended to you. Address the points I raised directly. Stop the headline rhetoric. Start offering details of viable solutions instead of just shooting down the efforts of those who are trying.
The residents served by ECCFPD deserve no less.
NO, its that simple
The union is allowed to renegotiate benefits and pensions if the tax passes.
The union will only allow renogotiations to pensions if it fails.
This is a union increase tax not a fire tax. Threats of closures is a sad way to sell a tax. Very dissapointing at the least. Vote No, too many taxes have ruined my way of living normal. NO. Don't be fooled.
For management to voluntarily tether itself to the status quo labor contract is, at best, short-sighted.
Are you speaking in official capacity for the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association with these comments, since you are a sitting Director?
I find it odd that your focus is first on the labor contract as opposed to ECCFPD maintaining adequate fire protection for our residents. It should be noted that you do not reside in this district as you are a resident of Pleasant Hill, which is served by ConFire. As such, most of the consequences that await a ballot measure failure will not affect you.
Save for one.
Are you aware that you and your neighbors effectively subsidize ECCFPD to a degree today through auto-aid and move ups? That resource deployment currently operates in ECCFPD's favor to the tune of about 50% more roll and covers incidents with ConFire assisting us than ECCFPD gives to ConFire through reciprocal moves.
So the CCTA advocating for a defeat of Measure S is basically saying they want to exacerbate that existing inequity. Did someone not do their homework over there to realize what's going on?
Why would you not want ECCFPD to achieve a more self sustaining status by securing the revenue enhancement?
Hypothetical now: say it is post July 1 and stations have been cut to 3 in East County. Let's say we have another repeat incident similar to a couple we experienced last year. Where a series of fires were started by a train, or heaven forbid, another train-vehicular incident. Just how deep into ConFire do you estimate resources will be pulled to cover East County? Are you certain the station closest to you will not be impacted? Are you OK with that?
When the CCTA interrogated the Chief last year to understand the financial status of the District, what did you see which brought you to the conclusion that there is room to cut here and not put public safety seriously in jeopardy? Did you personally participate in that review?
Can you perhaps provide us some quick math on how you determined that a $2.6M and growing budget deficit is going to be bridged by cutting wages and benefits of 48 individuals? You have decided that you want to lock revenue streams and force the district to eat ever increasing costs which are out of their control such as fuel, utilities and medical. Are you not just locking in a situation where employees will be expected to absorb those costs indefinitely into the future?
I do not know of a single financial analyst who is predicting significant housing recovery over the next 10 years. From the County Administrator to analysts at firms like Goldman Sachs, nobody sees real recovery in housing prices before 2020. But costs out of the control of the district are sure to rise in that time, some significantly. How has the CCTA calculated this district or ConFire or any other is to contend with that other than to fully put the burden on the backs of their staff through crippling wage concessions? By crippling I'm talking on the order of 50% or greater.
Can you or another member of the CCTA please explain this social engineering experiment you wish to conduct in East County by suggesting fire engines not roll to medical calls? Actually I believe you are promoting that county wide. Can you explain, outside of the cost of diesel, how that is supposed to save the district any significant amount of money? Since fire professionals will still be in station and being paid, why would you not want to roll them to have maximum hands on scene for the unexpected? It happens far more often than it doesn't.
In advocating for a defeat of this Measure, has the CCTA done any estimations of the hit to insurance coverage for residents of the district? I think we can agree that rates will not be going down and the only possibility I see is up or perhaps canceled for some. Would you agree?
I know this is a lot of questions, but it would help better educate the voters for what awaits them by defeating Measure S. Which is what your group is advocating. Since we are down to "go time" in the voting, I think it fair to ask.
There are some very real and imminent threats to public safety at stake here. If you think I'm exaggerating or fear mongering, please explain how a 3 station model in any way adequately covers 250 sq miles. We won't even have sufficient internal resources to respond to a single alarm structure fire since that takes roughly 5 engines or 15 people.
Thank you.