The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District will ask residents to approve a $197-per-year parcel tax next June to improve service and avoid potentially devastating cuts next year.
The tax, which will generate about $8.6 million pr year, was sent to the ballot Monday on an 8-0 vote (Director Robert Kenny was absent). It will require a two-thirds majority to pass.
The ECCFPD encompasses 250 square miles of East County, including Brentwood, Oakley, Discovery Bay, Byron, Knightsen, Bethel Island and the area near Morgan Territory Road. Because tax-sharing rates were set in 1978 when the area was primarily served by volunteer and part-time firefighters, the ECCFPD receives only 6 cents of each property tax dollar – half of what most full-time districts receive. Plummeting property values have further eroded what the district gets, while the building boom has created the need for a modern, full-time department.
The additional tax will erase the $2.6 million operating deficit now made up with dwindling reserves, which will run out next year. It will also enable the district to expand the less-than-bare-bones service it can now provide. It will place three firefighters on each engine, one of whom will be a paramedic (two of the six district stations are now staffed with two firefighters). The district now provides only basic lifesaving medical service.
The increase will also enable the district to staff a seventh fire station. Last year, the district closed a station in Byron and one in Discovery Bay to cut costs, but it’s unclear at this point when or where the seventh station would open.
“That will be determined by call volume and the needs of the district,” Fire Chief Hugh Henderson said Tuesday. He said he hoped to have the full seven-station/paramedic alignment in place within five years.
If the tax passes, the district will begin receiving the additional funds in December of 2012. All six current stations would be staffed with three firefighters immediately, in January of 2013. The implementation of the paramedic program – which accounts for about $10 (5 percent) of the increase – would also start right away, beginning with training and equipment installation. The first two paramedics would be placed on engines in July of 2013, and incrementally thereafter until 2016, when all engines are expected to have paramedic firefighters on board.
Recognizing that the two-thirds majority required to pass the tax would be hard to achieve, the board on Monday also hired a public relations firm to help explain the tax to voters. The education effort is expected to show not only what the voters will receive for their money, but make certain they know what will happen if the tax doesn’t pass.
“If it fails, you’ve got three (stations),” Director Jim Frazier said Monday night. He was referring to the 3-station, 50-percent service slash needed for the district to live on its current income.
“The board has already explored what living with an $8 million budget means,” Henderson said Tuesday. “I don’t mean to make this a scare tactic; that’s all the money we will have.”
A number of residents on hand at Monday’s meeting said they were anxious to begin informing people about the tax, including Knightsen resident Carolyn Prince. Prince worked for five years as an EMT in far East County for American Medical Response, which currently provides paramedic service in the district. The people providing that service are outstanding, she said, but more are needed.
“I don’t care (about the money); I want the service,” said Prince, adding that she will be paying the tax four times for her four properties. “The money is nothing. Approve it as soon as possible so people like me and my family can educate people on the benefits of this measure.”
Also on board to help spread the word is Oakley resident and Bethel Island firefighter Tom Loccoco, who urged swift action.
“Get the information in concrete as soon as possible,” he said. “There are 100,000 people in our district, and I would like to talk to each and every one of them.”
Now it’s “loopholes of waste” when in reality this District has run on absolute bare bones staff for many years. There is no fluff, no fat to cut. That has been stated repeatedly, but you refuse to accept facts.
You again and again insist that someone should have come along and fixed it for you so you could continue paying 1970s prices for fire while the burden to make the District work in 2011 is put on someone else's back. That would be bad enough, except the math based on new construction in the last 10 years would not support your proposals. You claim developers don’t mitigate, while I live 500 yards from Station 59 that was built about 8 years ago…..as mitigation. The funds that built the brand new Station 93………mitigation. The conditional on Summer Lakes project that will bring a new station to the Cypress corridor……..mitigation.
Your words ring hollow, John.
You continue to insist the Board of Supervisors should have taken action, when no major projects in East County have come before them in 10 years. All they could have done, John, was to bring the exact same parcel tax before you sooner.
You demand a freeze on salaries that are already 40% below scale in an expensive area of the country to live, while ignoring cost of living pressures that are beyond the control of anyone making decisions here.
Of course you can cite facts, John. Facts that rarely have any relation or proper context to the issue at hand.
John, I’ve sat in multiple meetings where Mr. Guerrero was present, donating his time to a process to try to move this forward. Meanwhile you lob cheap shots from the cheap seats because you can’t be bothered to follow the process and rules everyone else is expected to. That’s a rather odd example from you of “jumping in and working together”. Don’t fault others who are engaged and actually doing the heavy lifting. If you can’t be adult about it and show a little willingness to learn something about how to PROPERLY affect change instead of just screaming through your computer terminal, then that’s on you.
The fire fighters have had skin in the game here for a long time. You only need to see the consistent turnout at meetings of the rank and file to understand that. They’ve been as frustrated as anybody that the process has been stalled for well over a year. Now that a decision has finally come down from the board, I have no doubt they will be there throughout the campaign to promote this measure.
You should really consider offering them support, John, instead of spending the bulk of your energy belittling and criticizing. After all, they’re fighting to keep that station in your neighborhood open, because it’s certainly one of those that will close if this measure fails. The ballot measure is not the proper document for the conditions you continue to demand. Do yourself a favor to lessen your frustration and spend some time learning where and when you can properly have those concerns addressed.
This is neither the time or the place and you’re risking the safety of others with these selfish pursuits.
I'm not concerned if the wages shown are janitors, chiefs, presidents, union or not. Notice I left out the names. That's because it not about the individual employees even though Mr. Mankin and yourself seem to want it to be. As far as I am concerned all these firefighters and civilian personnel make a fair wage and work hard for it. No one in the district appears to be underpaid or overpaid. The new tax is a money issue. All outgoing money should be considered. Costs are finite not union or non-union. The money is a neutral commodity. In these times money is also short of supply just like jobs. Please do not try to distract the real issue ( dollars). Besides, if a person decides to be a fireman or policeman for the money I do not have very much respect for them anyway. The truth of the entire matter is to close the loopholes of waste. Close the loopholes of bypassing mitigation on development, become truly independent, open all stations and move forward. I support more firefighters and stations. I am willing to go the extra mile and pay as long as the basics are taken care of first. In this case, it appears that is not what all the new tax money will be spent on. Therefore, I as a taxpayer with more than one parcel am concerned. This is my right. Please do not try to take that away from me or any other citizen. If I am going to pay more I need to know that the money is spent wisely. I also demand that everyone else involved place a stake in this as well. This includes you, the developers, the cities, and the county. I could cite a fact for each of the entities noted and how they avoided placing a stake in the success of the ECCFPD. This situation has been coming for years. The housing crunch just sped up the process. All of us are to blame (including the union). Instead of everyone jumping in and working together, it's been the supervisor, the developer, the cities, the county, and yes the union too all independent of each other unwilling to sacrifice. So if it's going to be corrected I'd like to know what others are weighing besides only the hard working tax payer who somehow is getting left holding the bag. Support goes in two directions. What Mr. Guerrera is your organization doing financially to help this measure succeed besides political contributions ?
1. Of the 14 District employees with $100K saleries, the four highest are the Chief and Battalion Chiefs. They are not Union members. They are paid far less than other Bay Area Chief Officers. The ten other employees listed had to be on duty fifteen days per month(24 hours a day)every month for the entire year. What other professional occupation spends half of the hours in a year working (Fire, Medical, Haz-Mat, Vehicle Accident etc.) with constant exposure to evironmental, physical and mental streesors that your firefighters experience? Would you want them to earn less for the sacrifice they and thier families make on the communities behalf?
2. The Firefighters have taken consessions from the start of the consolidation. Some of the Reserve ECC Firefighters turned down fulltime positions because they could not afford to work for the wages offered.
3. The East Contra Costa FPD entry requirements and promotional requirements are among the highest in the county. The safety and and working contions are among the most difficult.
4. The employees pay: 12-25% of their health care (depending on plan); 9-14% of their retirement(depending on their age).
5. An East Contra Firefighter, Engineer, Captain, or Chief Officer is paid far less than surrounding Fire agencies.
This is not a employee (Union)issue, I would ask that you would not try to make it one.
Thank you,
Gil Guerrero,
Contra Costa Prossional Firefighters
Local 1230
First you say I have some very valid questions "John, you actually have a couple of decent questions" then you go into a moronic mode. Come on Bob, stick to the subject and stop trying to confuse the subject with your attacks.
You quote facts Bob, lets quote
facts ....
East CCC Fire Protection Dist $115,655 Details
East CCC Fire Protection Dist $108,962 Details
East CCC Fire Protection Dist $141,600 Details
East CCC Fire Protection Dist $134,124 Details
East CCC Fire Protection Dist $130,509 Details
East CCC Fire Protection Dist $122,806 Details
East CCC Fire Protection Dist $117,122 Details
East CCC Fire Protection Dist $115,655 Details
East CCC Fire Protection Dist $108,962 Details
East CCC Fire Protection Dist $103,878 Details
East CCC Fire Protection Dist $103,744 Details
East CCC Fire Protection Dist $101,908 Details
East CCC Fire Protection Dist $101,213 Details
East CCC Fire Protection Dist $100,848 Details
Household income for the State of California $ 58,931.00
Household income for Contra Costa County
$80,790.00
Bob, if your going to throw out comparisons lets do that;
http://www1.salary.com/Fire-Fighter-Salary.html
The median expected salary for a typical Fire Fighter in the United States is $41,514.
Keep up the BS Bob it only produces responses like to rebut your idiocy.
Making demands on an internet message forum will get you nowhere. The people who can help you are not here and don’t read your stuff. Now if you can still find one that you haven’t alienated with the same demanding personality you display in person that you put on display here, they can perhaps point you to the proper forums and agency who can address your concerns.
If you think you can simply embed your demands into a ballot measure then you REALLY do not understand how government works. I understand the reason why people like you and Jeff want officials to wade into this online cesspool is because the lack of rules. You both live for that. Eliminate the 3 minute rule and any requirement for civil dialog and you’re in heaven.
Sorry, but that accomplishes nothing except afford you a place to rant.
If you want to talk disappointing, John, why do you feel that paying fire fighters in ECCFPD at 40% less than those in ConFire is acceptable? In fact, you want to add insult to injury by freezing their salaries indefinitely? Then you want to do it through some illegal wording in a ballot measure? So it’s all about saving you a buck with no concern whatsoever on what impact it has on our firefighting professionals. You want to keep them priced right out of the local housing market and force them to live and commute in from areas 80 or 100 miles out in the central valley where with the wages you want to pay here is the only place they can afford a home. I want our fire fighters and all our public safety people compensated in a manner that allows them to afford living locally. There are tremendous benefits and personal investment factors to be gained there.
Complaining about a total compensation number all by itself and not in full context is pointless. Stop treating our public employees like whipping boys, John. There is a certain point at which your attempts to beat down labor costs are self defeating and in my opinion, we’re there.
A starting fire fighter here earns a base pay of a little over $4300/mo and has to contribute to their health care/dental and retirement costs. Nobody is going to get rich on that, John, despite the innuendo you lay on heavily here.
You keep glossing over or perhaps you just never fully grasped the core issue. We pay only 6 cents of our property tax dollar to fire. Over in ConFire they pay an average that is twice that. Certain areas pay as much as 24 to 30 cents on their dollars. That is a STATE mandated formula. Supervisor Piepho has nothing to do with that and no say in changing it. You can badmouth her all day long, but it’s just a manifestation from the fact she removed you from a position because of your temper. You’ve never gotten over that. All she has done since taking office in 2004 was move along a process to hand off to local control which WAS ALREADY IN MOTION when she took her seat. Your “hot potato” comment is completely without merit, though even sitting members on the fire commission still try to blame the BoS in a very odd attempt to rewrite history.
If you have specifics on failures, then list them. Your broad brush innuendo is just more of your sour grapes personal vendetta against the lady. There have been no significant development projects in unincorporated East County brought before the BoS since 2004 over which she could have had a say on these developer fees and mitigation you continue to rant about. If you want to rail on former Supervisors who made those calls, maybe you should go track them down so you can badmouth the people who actually did have a say.
If you bothered to read the last MSR on this fire district, and there is no excuse for you not having done so, then you would know that any discussion of consolidation with neighboring fire districts DOES NOT TAKE PLACE until we first address this funding issue and close the per capita contribution gap that currently exists. I suggested over a year ago that $172 would be a number that not only bridged the existing gap, but accounted for a jump in ConFire’s per capita contributions when they go to the ballot box next year to ask for a $72 special tax. How I arrived at that number is all right there in the MSR. It’s not rocket science.
For those who are just tuning into the issue now and haven’t had the opportunity, you can read the MSR yourselves by copying and pasting this shortened link into a browser:
http://tinyurl.com/2bvy55d
That covers the entire county. The section on ECCFPD begins on page 185. You’ll also get to read the timeline of the last 10 years which better explains some of the distractions and sidebars that took place on the part of the cities that have kept this district from seeking independence and a funding measure sooner than this desperate eleventh hour.
John, I see another 6 months or so of frustration in your future. That’s about the time that will elapse before the final ballot language is sealed and submitted to the elections office. You have decided attending meetings is not worth your time and the structure of those meetings to promote civil discussion of your concerns is too limiting. So the process will move forward without you.
Frankly, most people I talk to outside of the meetings “get” the core issues at stake here and none seem interested in wandering off into the weeds on some of the issues you do. So if it were left to me, I wouldn’t spend any significant portion of the educational resources pursuing the John Gonzales vote and instead focus on the bulk of registered voters who are more reasonable and logical in the need for this tax.
Sorry to say, John, but I long ago mentally put you down as a “no” vote and have moved on. These exchange are never about trying to change your mind, though your narcissistic tone leads me to believe you think they are. It’s to put factual information out there so the rational voters can be better informed when they cast their vote. I hope they can see the value and the need, because the alternatives really are as bad as what is being stated.
Im dissapointed at you Bob for insinuating that dollars paid by the district to employees stop at the salary mark. Do you have some money tree to pay all the unfunded liability ? Those are hard costs. Total dollars paid out to anything is a cost to taxpayers. Don't try to sugar coat it like the unions do. There are several over $100,000. employees in this district. That is no number to sneeze at. As far as the 6% for fire is concerned, the error made by whomever to apply more tax dollars elsewhere does not mean the taxpayers need to pony up more money. We still pay the same as everyone else dollar for dollar. Because Supervisor Piepho dropped the ball for the past seven years and let the fire district along with the communities suffer with this also does not mean the taxpayers need to bail her errors out too.
However, in the light of moving forward I would consider paying more as long as my concerns are addressed in writing publically. Otherwise this is all just another circle of waste like the past ten years have been with the fire issue.
If you don’t understand the extra effort being put on Discovery Bay, then you probably don’t understand political campaigns. Which towns had fire stations closed last year, John? Do you think those folks might need a little more encouragement to get onboard with this plan?
You express some weird views on unions, but that comes from drinking too much of the kool-aid. The databases that you have copied and pasted from many times before are total compensation figures, not salaries. Odd that you haven’t figured that out by now. And the unions have taken concessions or have you been missing that news as well?
Jeff, I’m not sure how it worked in the corporate world before they paid to send you on your way, but risk management calculations are typically proprietary type information and formulas within the insurance industry. If you’re expecting them to cough that up for you so you can hypothesis to save a buck, I think you’re going to be disappointed. You can pound the table all day long, nobody is going to generate that information for you in a speculative fashion.
Sunset provisions were discussed and will likely be in the measure. But that is largely feel good verbage. The core issue again goes back to 1970s formulas. We pay on average 6% of our property tax dollars toward fire services while over the hill they pay twice that. That inequity has to be addressed for the long haul and it isn’t going to magically go away if and when the economy turns around. It’s HIGHLY unlikely that property values are going to recover at any sizeable pace for a decade or more.
That’s not just my opinion. The County CAO doesn’t see anything improving much before 2018 in his analysis.
Don't want to give an illusion that I am being uptight with information or something.
Currently AMR provides 911 ambulance service to most of Contra Costa including east county so if you ever are transported by an AMR ambulance you will get a bill (or your insurance).
The whole BLS/ALS charges that are seen at the county EMS website are confusing but all you need to know is that any ambulance with a paramedic is ALS regardless if they do any ALS service or not. BLS service and charges are for things like routine transfers that are set up from nursing homes to doctors offices and are with an ambulance staffed by two EMTs only, no paramedic on board.
Regardless of the fire department having paramedics you will always be billed at the ALS rate when a 911/paramedic/emergency/WhatEverYouWantToCallIt ambulance is used because you are paying for the service of that paramedic staffed ambulance to take of care, be with you, be committed to you, and be unavailable for any other service as long as it is with you.
Does that make sense at all? Let me know if you have any further questions and I will explain more and clarify further if needed.
If the legal tax proposed document is available, I think it should be printed in the newspapers for us to all see. Why wait if it has all these positives things. Show it.
As far as “blowin in the wind”. I disagree. The three minute rule and the lack of answers from questions only happen at the controlled meetings. You should know this. It’s a way of life in Disco Bay. So far 1,084 hits have tuned to this one day old article. I think it's a great forum as long as you and I and the rest are civil about it.
As far as the $85,000. is concerned, your close friend whom you say provides you with so much information at the department of health services ( Dr. Walker ) told me the number. It is actually an old number and should be increased. Maybe your thirty thousand is only one shift. I was quoted per engine.
Public employee Unions had a very good purpose in the early days. Today, my tax dollars are run through public employees to the union in the form of dues. Those are used against the taxpayers in the form of political influence. I’d rather those dollars stay in the employees pocket where they are intended.
Maybe the union should pony up part of the $120,000.00 consultant cost. It will benefit greatly if the tax passes.
Bob, your union busting insult almost got me to post every public salary in this district. Especially the six figure ones. This would show they are not underpaid at all.
I'm not saying they are overpaid either. Some other areas are, but the venue is also quite different from Bay Point to Brentwood. It's all proportional.
This leads to another question,
Will any of these new tax dollars be used to increase salaries? Maybe as a good faith gesture the union should publically negotiate a salary freeze or start reversing the unfunded liability on this district for a couple years. I do not want to know what has been done in the past. It’s what will be done in the future with my tax dollars that sways my support.
Oh, and can you answer something Bob. Why is it that my tax dollars have to pay for a third special mailer to Disco Bay educating them to vote yes? Is someone concerned Discovery Bay residents are over taxed so they need a third mailer with my tax dollars ? That does not set well with me.
1. Two direct mailers to registered voters and one (additional) direct mailer to the Discovery Bay community including design, copy, production, and mailing for $62,520.
Early on I went to multiple ECCFPB meetings and practically begged them to consider MORE than just the basic temporary solution of making every homeowner pay a new tax. Unfortunately the board members already had their minds made up and the chairman at the time led them in a completely failed direction (benefit assessment). They pretty much wasted a year by my observation. They had no committees, no working groups looking at bigger picture opportunities, they considered nothing but their predetermined concept that was not even viable/legal. A wasted year. The Chief could have penciled out and implemented the July 2010 service roll back in a few hours. A year wasted when the board could have been more fully engaged. And at this time I continue to recommend they engage to look at all of the opportunities carefully and diligently.
It is amusing how those that so boldly embrace the status quo so quickly kick back any ideas that are difficult, require change/forward thinking or conflict with special interests. It would be crazy for me, an outsider, to profess to be able to accurately write down/calculate all the numbers associated with a rolled-up new fire district. The burden should not fall to a citizen to have to do that. The burden falls to the governing boards, the paid management and to the union to sit together and put each barrier and issue on the table for analysis and discussion. I can only know what I have read and learned by sitting in some public meetings, it's not enough to do the numbers but it is enough to have a good idea where the barriers exist and that based on real world observations/awareness a combined county fire district has enough potential merit to warrant a complete/professional analysis. Based on what I know the total compensation/union barrier is the one I am most concerned about and the one I am targeted/villainized for even daring to mention. Continuing to target me and to refuse to address this opportunity in all likelihood condemns this county to ongoing fire district issues that will continue to require more and more tax money to be thrown in while a real solution(s) sits waiting. I'm sure Con Fire has all sorts of problems but so does the ECCFPD, that does not mean you ignore the possibility to exploit synergy, to leverage and aggressively tackle/resolve the hard issues.
As I said before....take the blinders off, we have entered a new era where reality says successful enterprises need to think in terms of spending only what you have and not engaging in labor deals or any other commitments (short-term & long-term) that are not sustainable. The problem is, sustainability in the public sector is a nebulas term when the politicos think the tax pot has no bottom......guess what, it has a bottom, it has been hit and 2/3 is a huge hurdle.
The ballot measure is not until next June, plenty of time for the boards, management and union (and 4th party who openly favors the concept) to fully explore the multi-district roll-up potential and meaningfully report to the public.
Sorry to disappoint but I don't spout off numbers that I know I am not qualified to develop. Some of you all might be comfortable in doing that but I'm not. Speaking of numbers I'm wondering how the billing for ALS/BLS is going to work once there is ALS on the East County engines. Right now if AMR transports they get to bill for ambulance and a separate line item for ALS/BLS of between $803 & $1,720. I learned this the hard way when my son broke his arm at school and I had to write a check. So under the proposed scenario when the fire engine arrives and provides emergency paramedic services then AMR arrives with a paramedic ambulance and provides services before and during transport...who gets to bill me for ALS/BLS? Do I get two bills? Is the fee split? Does AMR get nothing but the ambulance/milage fee? Does the fire department get no fee? Because this seems like significant money to a district on brink of failure I would assume all this has been analyzed, at least behind closed doors, and those so staunchly favoring/promoting the new tax already understand how this additional fee money paid in by residents is going to flow. Remember I know exactly how it works now because I had to write a check to AMR.
Before I decide how to vote I want a lot of real answers not a bunch of innuendo and brow beating. And much to your dismay I do believe enough folks who matter will see this.
On the fire insurance issue I want real (real time) info/documents that apply directly to this district and my community not something 5 or 6 years old extrapolated from some other county.
I want to know all the big picture (more difficult) alternatives have been properly evaluated.
I want to see the long-term math on at least the comp plan to know there is sustainability. Why bother throwing more money at something that is not sustainable?
I want to know the exact station configuration/timing. Why would I vote blind not knowing how my community will be impacted? It has to be said which stations will be open and which will be closed.
I want to know what steps the board/county will take to mitigate the impact of additional development in district that will always be revenue constrained by Prop 13.
I cannot see voting for a tax that does not have sunset provisions.
With ALS/BLS who pays who for what and when needs to be explained. How the measure H money will flow should to be exactly shown. Any change to the AMR configuration must be disclosed.
I want to know when the fire board will be independently elected.
First, I'm unaware of any Fire Commissioners or elected officials that have any say or influence who are interested in weighing into this online mud pit. There are better forums and officially noticed meetings where those questions are better asked and addressed. This is why they hold monthly fire meetings. So the public has the proper legal venue to engage.
The formation of the ballot measure is over. There is not longer an opportunity to play with the numbers. The hard deadline of June of next year is for a reason. Failing to obtain revenue approval by that time means it would not be added to the tax rolls for FY 2012/2013 and the District would be in dire straights.
You say that's not scary, so I'm sort of curious which part of that failure would be appealing to you.
You are completely mistaken if you believe this could go down to defeat and the County or the State is simply going to come in to rescue us or keep stations open. They are under no legal obligation to do so and have no funding to do so. This has been explained many times before, but you're still not getting it. I predict the typical defensive and partially incoherent response from you on this, but rather than brow beat me, just point to the section of the government code that proves me wrong.
The County is legally obligated to provide emergency health services and police(detention). But not fire.
The AMR/QRV thing is getting waaaaay more airtime here than it deserves and it's distracting from the core message. The QRVs are not guaranteed and any discussion on those is completely out of the control of this District. When the contract for those comes up again in 2014, there isn't even any assurance AMR would be the providing vendor. Alameda County just switched ambulance providers away from AMR in their recent contract.
The point being, ask the questions, but do it in the proper forums at the proper time. Doing that here is screaming at the wind. If you want to talk AMR and what they supply, show up to the BoS meetings late in 2013 when the topic is next on the table for discussion. You're not going to get any assurances on any of that here and now.
You seem to consistently have your hand out on this $85k/engine figure you're quoting. Can you cite what document you dredged that out of and under what agreement or obligation you would expect County Health to make that allotment?
For contrast, Richmond is currently receiving $30k/engine/year that is building in a fund to roll out Paramedics through Measure H monies. The fund sits with a balance of $690k at this time. If they only get $30k, how did you come to the conclusion we should get $85k?
That comment about scare tactics is pretty poor.
"The alternative isn't just a scare tactic, it's reality ".
That is a scare tactic.
We will always have fire service even if the state has to come in and provide it. Don't be so naive.
The fact that this fire district is not even recognized as independent by LAFCO along with the hands on influence of the county makes me wonder who really is in charge of this districts future.
One thing is sure, scare tactics only sour my opinion and support for any public agency.
Let’s get back to the nuts and bolts of exactly what this money will be spent for. Not in general terms but specific terms. That type of transparency will bring the subject to reality and alleviate all speculations. The paramedic issue is only one of several.
There are issues that the public should have answers to;
#1) Will the district immediately seek LAFCO approval as independent ?
#2) Will the area I live in have the “ NO COVER ZONE “ lifted ?
#3) Will there be increased ambulance service when QRV’s are eliminated ?
Again, will Contra Costa Health Services budget give ECCFPD $ 85,000 /-
per engine as paramedics come on line ?
#4) Confirm ALL parcels will pay the same and there is no tier system of any sort ?
#5) What is proposed with the planned new Cypress Station and Brentwood Station, Will these taxes allow immediate implementation to move forwards with them timely ?
#6) How soon will the closed stations be reopened with full three person staffing 24/7 ?
#7) Are there any provisions in the proposed tax that allow loop holes for current and future development to delay payments ?
#8) Do the people in Morgan Territory have to pay California $150.00 more for rural
coverage and the $197.00 to ECCFP ? What do they get for their added tax money ?
These are some questions that need direct answers, not just general pacified answers but specific ones. More questions will come up as the date gets closer to the ballot.
Scenario 1: Without the tax we would have 3 fire engines, 3 QRVs, and 3 paramedics. For medical calls, the two-agency arrangement could deploy 12 first responders with BLS qualifications and 3 with ALS in 6 vehicles. It could field 9 people in 3 vehicles to fight fires or work car crashes.
Scenario 2: With the tax we would have 7 fire engines, no QRVs and 7 paramedics. For medical calls, the one-agency arrangement could deploy 14 first responders with BLS qualifications and 7 with ALS in 7 vehicles. It could field 21 people in 7 vehicles to fight fires and work car crashes.
We have to keep this in perspective. The ALS portion is 5 percent of the tax. It would be unfortunate if a dispute over such a small part of the overall package doomed the 95 percent, main purpose of the tax: Prevent Scenario 1.
OK. Feedback time.
Rick
I attended the last few meetings to get a better understanding. Now I'm reading some individuals on here already seeming like they've decided their no vote.
All I'm saying is seek out information about what the plan is before you put your negitive spin on this. After you've found out the facts then post your opinions/questions but don't just chime in what you think should be done to fix this and say things like "I'm leaning towards a no vote" because you got your feelings hurt.
The fire board is doing everything they can to make the best decision for the now and the future. Something must be decided and the alternative that was talked about during the meetings if this doesn't pass looks very unsafe for the community. The alternative isn't just a scare tactic, it's reality.
Please educate yourself more before deciding. If your saying no. Why? Because your plan is better? Well tell the fire board your plan. Maybe your plan is better. Just as long as my family is safe in the end, I don't care how we get it.
At least try to show a little integrity on such an important topic as public safety.
You mention “union” 4 times in one post. Even dragging in the auto unions in some weird analogy. Are you really going to suggest after the fact you weren't trying to vilify them and remove them from the picture?
You asked for documents to support the reasons for the level of concern over insurance rates. I provided that to you.
But when I ask for the simple courtesy of you explaining your plan, I'm not worthy?
Are you expecting the readership to simply follow your lead without any explanation of the downside or any figures to show it's fiscally viable?
You've spent years blaming any number of people for the lack of services in East County, but remain unable to verbalize solutions other than someone else should bear the cost while you skate?
If that is not the "I was here first" policy I stated earlier, then what would you call it?
I'm not going to go back into what I said but I do want to get something straight. This guy who seems to know everything about everything (that's a complement because I wish I was so all knowing) has hung the title/phrase of 'union buster' or 'union busting' on me and others. I don't really know what his definition is so I don't know if he is insulting me or offering praise. Is he saying you are 'union busting' anytime you question the mathematical sustainability of a compensation plan? If so then thank you because I would not consider the term, under that definition, a pejorative; if that is his definition I actually would consider it a favorable term used to describe a person who is willing to try to understand reality, comprehend the world today and to look forward, without bias, while taking into account all the factors that need to be addressed to create long-term success for an enterprise.
jb
Im not promoting who was here first.
I'm promoting;
Taxpayers need to stop bailing out irresponsible special interest bad politicians who do not look out for the publics best interest and future.
Nothing wrong with a tax as long as it is not bailing out some political poor planning mistakes and has a very good prudent spending plan benefiting all.
I think we all know the public is fed up with paying more taxes every time the government sticks it's hand out.
So, if they are going to (such as in this case)ask for more taxes, they better show me exactly all the wonderful things they are going to do for the added taxes they want over and above all the taxes we already pay everyday.
I'm really trying to make this work in my mind but Mankin keeps pushing me over to the No side of the fence.
You could have just relabeled your post, “I demand union busting” and save yourself a whole lot of typing.
ECCFPD is paid under scale as it is. Fire, in general, in CoCo County has made concessions for years. Maybe you read too many CCTimes headlines and don’t pay attention to real facts to have a grasp on actual compensation, but not too many fire fighters living high on the hog that I’m aware of.
Rather than play this vague little game of yours, how about you just spit out a number that you’re expecting “the help” to be paid? I use that term because I’m reasonably confident that is precisely how you view public sector employees.
Also explain how this “dilution” concept of yours works in your head when new development pays the same tax rate as you do when the come online and their dollars are allocated to the District using the same mandated formulas.
I think what you are really promoting is what John G has for months. It’s the “I was here first” plan. In actuality, you weren’t, but you appointed yourself the arbiter here to draw some imaginary line in time that magically benefits you.
How convenient.
But in fairness and in the spirit of open minds, we should look at your math to see if it makes sense. So let’s go back 11 years.
How many new parcels have been approved in ECCFPD since you moved here? I assume since it is you running this up the flagpole you at least did the preliminary math to show it makes sense? This is where those years of bragging about your corporate experience and planning will come in handy. I look forward to your figures.
Unsubstantiated scare tactics? The report on file in the Department of Homeland Security archives has been linked here probably a half a dozen times before. Did you bother to read it?
www.usfa.dhs.gov/pdf/efop/efo39907.pdf
Consistently in the appendix data, 5 miles is considered no man’s land for insurance purposes. For some insurance companies it’s only 3 miles. If you are going to dismiss the document, shouldn’t you cite whatever information you have which disputes it? I know you’re pretty high on your opinion and all, but with potentially tens of millions of dollars of insurance premium dollars at stake here, not to mention lives and property, I’m gonna need a little more than that.
But if you’re willing to indemnify the entire District so that you can conduct some little experiment with your opinions, I suppose we should hear them out.
You bring your checkbook with ya?
Regarding who must pay for the election I found this through a search of California Codes;
California Codes Government Code Section 50078.13. The local agency shall pay the county for costs, if any, incurred by the county in conducting the election. An election called by a legislative body pursuant to this article is subject to all provisions of the Elections Code applicable to elections called by the local agency. The local agency may recover the costs of the election and any other costs of preparing and levying the assessment from the proceeds of the assessment.
Robert