I am tired of reading all these scare tactics regarding Measure S. After years of inaction by the BOS and now the current commission, the tough decisions have not been attempted to correct the operational model and save cost.
Since the union came into the district, they have almost completely wiped out the paid on-call (POC) firemen. I saw this when I was on the Transitional Fire Commission and it has continued going on for 10 years. I saw this with major arguments between the union and the POCs. The POCs in the past were an integral part of the district. POCs are used throughout the U.S. very successfully and not just in rural communities. POCs are efficient and save money.
No one has stepped up to restructure the pension program that is underfunded and taking up too much of the operational money that could be used for district operations. Ten years ago this was brought to the attention of the BOS and nothing has been done except dig the district deeper in debt.
Back in 2003, Cal Fire came in during the City Gate report and showed it could be effective in running the district while saving money. However, the union fought it, as they would have to go under Cal Fire’s work rules, and the union did not like it. The BOS, in my opinion, caved in to the union and decided not to pursue this cost-saving operational model.
We all know there is a financial problem and the alarms having been sounding for many years. It is time to step up and make the hard decisions to restructure the district operationally and financially. Then revaluate if and how much revenue is needed. Measure S makes no corrections and puts the financial burdens on all us taxpayers. It is time to say to the commission and the BOS: do your job. Make the difficult decisions then let’s talk about revenue increase.
As a Discovery Bay resident of 24 years, I believe Measure S does nothing regarding opening the station that was closed in DB or Byron. In fact, the plan calls for a new station in year five and not reopening any of the stations that were closed. I can see no reason to support the measure with those types of commission recommendations.
This reminds me of ObamaCare. We all agree that healthcare needs to be reformed but many believe what was passed a few years ago does nothing to solve the problem but add cost to the taxpayer. Measure S is the same. We need a real solution to our fire district. Vote No on S.
Walter MacVittie
Discovery Bay
What is the tax for? Putting out fires that essentially never happen.
Your quote:
" You also seem to not realize that both you and Mr. Gonzalez were no a board that also did not fix the problem."
Obviously Burke you have no clue and were not at those meetings. Let me fill you in as to why there was not a fix.
Cal Fire provided a documented quotation to run the fire suppression. In that document the quotation showed: ALL STATIONS REMAINED OPEN WITH 3 FIREFIGHTERS AND THOSE FIREFIGHTERS WOULD ALL RETAIN THEIR JOBS MAKING $25,000 MORE ANNUALLY.
THE PRICE WAS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS LESS THAN THE BUDGET. WE ONLY HAD TWO FIREFIGHTERS PER ENGINE WITH ONE STATION POC.
DURING THE LAST TRANSITION MEETING A VOTE WAS TO TAKE PLACE BY THE COMMISSION. YOUR SUPERVISOR MARY PIEPHO STOPPED THE VOTE AND CANCELLED THE ENTIRE COMMISSION. YOUR SUPERVISOR LEFT THE FIRE DISTRICT WITHOUT A COMMISSION FOR SEVEN YEARS.
Since that time the POCs have been run off, the unfunded liability for pension has ballooned to 11,ooo,ooo.oo dollars in red ink, stations have been closed, equipment is run down, maintenance at the stations is poor, and threats are being made to pony up more union benefited money or else.
During this time several ideas and correspondences have been provided to not only ALL the Chief’s, but also to the BOS and the Cities. Not one benefit assessment district has been formed except for the city of Brentwood (which has five) and none of those dollars are shared with ECCFPD. None of the suggestions have been truly explored. I would think that the commission, the supervisors, and the union would jump at any suggestion that increases safety and saves lives. The problem is some of those suggestions are not union approved. That’s just wrong and it puts citizens at risk.
Now, Mr. Burke you know a little bit more information. I bet this info didn't pop up at the stage of meetings you profess are so productive. Yes, I have gone to them more than once. The meetings have become mostly a waste of time. The decisions that have wrecked the fire district are made behind the scenes. I pray that this measure fails so the City of Brentwood can have a city fire department and show the rest of East County it can be done within budget. It may not be done with this one sided union, but it will be done.
It is sad that people will be put out in order for the problem to be fixed. Many believe it is necessary to vote no and send a message that this measure does not solve the problem but rather throws good money away. I agree. It is a tough decision on my part, but I am not influenced by special interest. I’m only influenced by common sense and real fixes.
Just the mere fact that they want to expand union influence with the paramedic takeover smells of poor or influenced decisions.
This, along with much more and the fact that they want to take the emergency medical response paid for by Health Services and receive next to nothing in return while continuing to stay eleven million $ 11,000,000.00 in red ink shows this new tax heads down the same money pit of no return for the citizens of this county and the firefighters who should be equally paid with their counter parts.
During this time several ideas and correspondences have been provided to not only ALL the Chief’s, but also to the BOS and the Cities. Not one benefit assessment district has been formed except for the city of Brentwood (which has five) and none of those dollars are shared with ECCFPD. None of the suggestions have been truly explored. I would think that the commission, the supervisors, and the union would jump at any suggestion that increases safety and saves lives. The problem is some of those suggestions are not union approved. That’s just wrong and it puts citizens at risk.
Now, Mr. Burke you know a little bit more information. I bet this info didn't pop up at the stage of meetings you profess are so productive. Yes, I have gone to them more than once. The meetings have become mostly a waste of time. The decisions that have wrecked the fire district are made behind the scenes. I pray that this measure fails so the City of Brentwood can have a city fire department and show the rest of East County it can be done within budget. It may not be done with this one sided union, but it will be done.
It is sad that people will be put out in order for the problem to be fixed. Many believe it is necessary to vote no and send a message that this measure does not solve the problem but rather throws good money away. I agree. It is a tough decision on my part, but I am not influenced by special interest. I’m only influenced by common sense and real fixes.
Just the mere fact that they want to expand union influence with the paramedic takeover smells of poor or influenced decisions.
This, along with much more and the fact that they want to take the emergency medical response paid for by Health Services and receive next to nothing in return while continuing to stay eleven million $ 11,000,000.00 in red ink shows this new tax heads down the same money pit of no return for the citizens of this county and the firefighters who should be equally paid with their counter parts.
Unfortunately the current commission was thrown the problem from our Supervisor while none of them had a history how the problem truly was made. They were just told "it’s a money problem". The current ECCFPD problems go far beyond a money problem. Today, it is a political problem and unfortunately it has caught our firefighters in the middle. Now the powers to be want to scare us into paying more for their failure to do the job.
I am surprised some of the commissioners believe the district is truly independent. Well, it's not. It’s truly independent dependant on the county until it is legally recognized by LAFCO under government mandate. Just like the 4.8 million missing in the projected fourth year revenue versus the third year. It appears some are not doing their homework but rather taking the easy way out by asking for more tax money.
Yes, the county needs to re-organize county fire districts, equalize firefighter pay and provide the same service other parts of the county get. We all pay the same tax.
Thank you for the walk down memory lane of east county fire. I would like to get you into the current reality for the ECCFPD.
1) The Board of Supervisors no longer has any control of the ECCFPD, the District is governed by nine member board of directors from east county (Local Control).
2) The CalFire option discussed in 2003 no longer is valid and most recently Kris Hunt from the CoCo Taxpayers Assoc used the Morgan Hill CalFire contract as a way to go. Unfortunately she did not check her facts, that contract would cost the district more than the current level of service, check for yourself in the attached link;
http://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=5522
3) The City Gate report you referenced stated that ECCFPD should have 10 stations, not 6 and surely not 3 if measure S fails.
4) The decision has not been made by the ECCFPD Board which stations will close; The BOS has no control of this except for one vote by our elected supervisor on the same ballot as all registered voters in the district have.
5) The restructuring operationally and financially has been done and the tax measure reflects the amount needed to accomplish the goals of the ECCFPD Board of Directors. The plan approved by the Board of Directors of the ECCFPD is a ten year model Including an Equipment replacement fund, Capital improvement fund, adding a third firefighter at the Bethel Island and Knightsen station, it provides in a phased approach training for paramedics and the equipment necessary to provide Advanced Life Support, the model also takes into account the rising cost of medical insurance and provides for opening a seventh station if growth warrants it in a location to be determined in the future by the ECCFPD Board of Directors not the BOS!
6) New reality for ECCFPD and Measure S
Vote YES and you will have six stations with paramedics and a sound financial plan.
Vote NO and you will have three stations, no paramedics and no guaranties which three stations will remain open.
I recommend a yes vote, because if the voters say no to Measure S, I will support a balanced budget, do my job, and make the difficult decisions.
You obviously mean no paramedics on fire engines, the first emergency responders on most scenes. There will still be three paramedics on QRVs like there are now. Although the paramedic on Bethel Isand will probably go to Oakley if thats the clsest station still open.
I think you should have also said the service model the board approved wasn't their idea. The goal for three-person crews with paramedics has been repeatedly set by public input that has been vigourously sought and consistantly affirmed by the reccomendations of numerous intensive reviews by government agencies, outside consultants and and fire industry experts. All of which was done with the idea that a tax would eventually be needed right out in front of the discussion.
Measure S gets us closer to what we said we wanted or at least keeps us from going backwards to a dangerous situation. we got local control so we can go after what, and we decided what we want after 10 years of analysis. The economy pushed it to a crisis that has to be addressed now.
I would like to respond to many of your statements that are not just memory lane thoughts but actual today status.
#1 - "The Board of Supervisors no longer has any control of the ECCFPD" I do not believe the fire commission has yet to become an independent district under Calif. gov't law. The BOS still has the overall, by law, responsibility. So, I still feel they have a responsibility to correct problems in the districts structure.
#2 While I agree that a 2003 proposal would not be valid today the point is at the time of a full blown proposal including cost was disregarded. I do feel that an in depth new proposal could save the district money.
#3 the City gate report did have that as one of it's potential proposals. They also had models with less stations.
#4 From all information out there has been no statements that our stations that have been closed will reopen. The only additional potential opening would be a new station in Oakley. The current Commission has show that in my opinion they treat Brentwood and Oakley different from the unincorporated area that includes Discovery Bay.
#5 As to the restructuring you state in your comments all it does is put an additional tax burden on the community. The district needs the restructuring I have stated in my original letter above that will save cost. Your Measure S does
Your Measure S does not do this.
I'm curious, how many fire meetings did you attend?
Not sure where you are going with your ask. However, everything I stated is factual or where I stated my opinion - that is my opinion.
And please stop saying this isa BOS problem, it's a revenue problem. With a lack of understanding, its amazing you were one of three names on the arguement against Measure S along with Ms. Hunt and Mr. Roberts.
While I respect that you think Measure S is great and believe it will solve our Districts problems many of us that have been deeply involved with this for over 10 years have reach a different conclusion.
My statements regarding the BOS are factual. They knew abot the districts problems over 10 years ago. Restructuring with a different model and the issue of the cost of the pensions were addressed to them by the Transitional commisionin 2004. It was brought to their attendion many times. It was also brought to the new commisioner's attention. the problem has never been addressed.
I have read many of your insults on these forums that have a different view from yours. Please respect different views and keep to the facts. Many of us come with many years of knowledge on this subject. Based on what we know and we have seen we believe that before the District ask the residents for more money that they work on the structural issues that Measure S does not address.
Measure S will keep stations open for 10 years while larger solutions can be implemented, that's all. Paramedics were added because it was thought people wouldn't pay more unless they got more, as well as because paramedics on fire engines are the standard vitually everywhere else.
These bog-picture, far-reaching solutions you suggest are probably what needs to be done, and I hope we can count on you to keep up the pressure until it is fixed for good. It will take years, even if you do help. Maybe 10 years.
Meanwhile I live on the west side of brentwood boulevard like tens of thousands of other people here and in north Brentwood and west Oakley. Right now we get a fire engine in six to 7 minute or less. If S fails, downtown Brentwood station closes and the Knighten stations closes, and we can expect to wait 13 minutes.
I can't hold my breath for those extra six minutes. Keep the stations open while we fix the problems. People who say it's kicking the can down the road are right, and its the right thing to do no matter whose fault itis we got here.
It will take time to fix this and we can spend that time covered by the firefighters and stations we have now or fix it while all 105,000 of us are protected by 8 guys.
I did not attack you, I simply stated you did not know what you are talking about when you say Measure S does nothing and put the blame on a board that has not had control for many years. You also seem to not realize that both you and Mr. Gonzalez were no a board that also did not fix the problem.
My point is, I don't care if you were on a transitional board or not and attended those meetings, you have attended very few (if any) ECCFPD meetings--at least I have not seen you at any. What you appear to be an expert on is what is written in the papers as opposed to actually hearing what is being said in person.
It's the same arguement I have with self appointed expert John Gonzales who has all the answers, but never shows up to meetings or presents his ideas to the board on record.