“They consider the service adequate, but I don’t know where you can find anyone in the district who thinks that,” said East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) Chief Hugh Henderson. “I haven’t heard that in any of our community meetings.”
Due to plummeting property tax revenue and a tax-sharing structure established when fire service in far East County was provided mostly by volunteers, the ECCFPD is currently operating at a $2 million annual deficit. The reserves now being used to keep the district afloat will run out in about six months.
The district is considering placing a $197-per-parcel property tax on the ballot in June to avoid having to close three of it's remaining six stations and lay off half its 48 firefighters. The district has virtually no equipment replacement fund, operates at least two stations with inadequate crew quarters (Station 95 in Bethel Island has been condemned for toxic mold), and runs two of its six engines with two firefighters instead of the industry standard three.
According to the report, however, “The Grand Jury has validated that the level of service provided with the current operating structure meets the needs of the residents of the District. There has been no loss of life or property directly attributable to the service levels provided through the current operating structure. … From a quality of service point of view, the current operating structure is adequate.”
“They say our operation is adequate because no one has died,” said ECCFPD Board President Kevin Romick. “This is a politically motivated witch hunt to prove the property tax wasn’t necessary. Why don’t they rely on previous (2008) Grand Jury findings, or the county’s Municipal Service Review, or the 2006 Citigate report?” Romick said.
Each of those reports examined the ECCFPD and concluded that staff levels were too low and additional tax revenue was needed, even before the recession hit and two of the eight district stations were closed.
The report says the district should also consider reducing firefighter retirement benefits as a cost-saving measure. Henderson could not say whether those benefits were being discussed because the contract with firefighters’ union Local 1230 expired last November, and the ongoing negotiations are confidential. He noted, however, that ECCFPD wages are already 40 to 60 percent lower than elsewhere in the county.
Romick also took issue with the report’s recommendations, including that the board consider other service models and how much is needed to maintain them. Romick said the board has already discussed paid-on-call staffing as well as annexation to the county’s ConFire district, and revised the plan for seeking a tax increase several times under the various scenarios.
“These numbers weren’t just pulled out of the sky,” Romick said. “A great deal of work went into this. We started at $97, then $187, just to provide a stopgap measure. The public said, ‘We don’t want a stopgap measure; we want the problem fixed.’ So we’re at the $197.”
The report also calls for the district to consider getting a proposal from the state’s CalFire, an idea considered in 2006 but rejected in part because it meant transferring control of the district to the state, Romick said.
“We’ve seen the state in action,” he said. “The whole budget process in the state is messed up.”
The report also recommends that the district develop a plan of what it will do in the event a tax is requested and rejected. That, Romick said, has also been done and made public.
“It should be sufficient to say we’ll be running on three stations and with half the crew,” he said.
Henderson said a detailed response to the Grand Jury report is being developed, and will be discussed at the next fire board meeting, to be held next Monday, Jan. 9 at 6:30 p.m. in the Oakley City Council Chambers, 3231 Main St.
The complete Grand Jury report can be downloaded by clicking here.
There are 3 paramedics provided by AMR currently to the district but if you dig a little deeper that contract obligation expires in 2014. I'm not willing to rely on AMR leaving those Paramedics in place escpecailly since they just lost the contract with all of Alameda County... We could be next. Personally, I want to know that a Paramedic will be showing up on my fire engine if I ever need to call 911 and not hoping that AMR still has someone there.
According to the board they plan on opening another station at the end of year 5 so I'm sure that will cut into that $11.8m quite a bit if they have to build a new station, hire another 9 personnel, buy more equipment etc...
I do agree with you that there needs to be some kind of cap or sunset though.
Regarding the AMR contract, AMR does not decide if the QRV's go away. The County Health Services and the BOS do. You can be relieved of that issue. I was informed by Mr. Mankin of Discovery Bay that it was the efforts of Mary Piepho that made sure the QRV's were not only included but an additional one ( The Discovery QRV paramedic) be added as part of the AMR contract. I think she could easily continue that requirement until that five year 11.8 million dollars is available (Especially in this economy). As far as a new station is concerned, those funds are required as mitigation and are collected in a different “capitol funding “account. This tax should not affect the opening of a station. The new tax could affect the staffing of a station. The premature paramedic takeover could negatively affect the opening and/or reopening of a station before the construction costs itself.
I have discovered another possible issue with the ballot measure that needs clarification. The draft verbiage that is out now leaves a loophole for developers. This is something of great concern to me. I have brought this up to the politicians for a long time to no avail. The verbiage for a taxable parcel specifies “a developed parcel". Where is the definition on the ballot that defines developed parcel? It is these types of open ended things that make me suspicious of government. Development is what has brought us to this point. A developed parcel should be defined as “any parcel that has or is in the process of an official tax parcel number “or something similar.
“The Board estimates that the amount of unused funds at the end of a five-year period will be $1 1.8 million”.
In my opinion the definitive use of a portion of the new tax dollars have been influenced by the union and unnecessarily. There are immediate needs to reopen stations and provide much needed heavy equipment now. Oakley itself should have at least one other station for its population. If not, at least two engines and full crews out or the one station.
That is being overlooked. I noticed in the report that Cal Fire would provide more service for our tax dollar. This is true and has been looked at. To pass that option by the board is fine. I think there is no benefit to slam Cal Fire as one local commissioner has done. The Firefighters are trained to the exact same standards. Why can't you just say the district employees would rather be represented local 1230. Remember the very same employees would have held the very same job and make $20K more income as was made public . That was shot down. This is another clue to the power of the local unions influence on the District. Being properly represented by a union is fine. When pork belly items are added to a new tax that people can't afford in the first place is wrong. I suggest the District re-look at the few serious concerns of re-opening all the stations, addressing the shortage of Firefighters in the City of Oakley, adjusting the 2% benefit fund, and tying the 5% annual increase to capping until the rise of prop 13 income comes back. Allow the %5 to return should prop 13 revenues fall back again. There is still time to drop the pork belly parts of the tax and correct the priorities like minimum three on all engines, re-open all stations, upgrade communications, prepare for a ladder truck and crew. I would think the union would support more firefighters and retaining the existing firefighters. Remember the Board estimates $11.8 Million Dollars of unused funds in year five. That would be the perfect time to phase in paramedics among other lower priority improvements.
There will be a Fire Board Meeting January 9, 2012 at 6:30 PM, at the Oakley City Council Chambers.
At this meeting the Fire Board will address the recommendations of the Grand Jury Report. They will also discuss the proposed revenue measure. I would suggest that those of you who are interested in this topic, come to the meeting prepared to ask questions. This is so you can get the facts and not a semi-educated personal opinion. There has been a lot of information put out on this site that is semi-accurate and sometimes slanted to certain individual’s personal point of views. Many of these "slants" are based on battles that have been fought in the past since this Fire District has been struggling since the population growth. My area of expertise comes from direct involvement and direct conversations with all the policy makers, firefighters, and many members of the public. In regards to the comments made about the union influence in this measure, they are as follows: Increase staffing levels to three personnel to all engines that are in service, open as many of the closed stations as possible, go to the public once for an amount that brings the department up to a adequate service level (grand jury report is wrong about it being adequate now). Despite the inferences made by some on this site, Local 1230 has been proactive in this process and has used its influences to assure adequate fire protection for the citizens of the fire district. Also in assuring that the firefighters are staffed and trained appropriately to provide for their safety and the safety of the community. We are well aware of the economic struggles this country is faced with and have acted accordingly. As A Fire Captian in Con Fire, we have just received our first pay cut. (We agreed to it to save fire stations). The East County Fire Fighters are paid well below the industry standard. They are the lowest paid by over 50%. They do the same job that every other firefighter does in this county and with fewer resources. Having a 2% cost of living increase built in to this measure doesn't even put a dent in the pay difference. We have also offered to make changes in the pension formulas as well.
As far as QRV's and Engine Based Paramedics, I have asked the Fire Chief and AMR administration to do public meetings to answer questions about this issue. I believe it has been misrepresented on this thread and others. As far as Local 1230 is concerned, there is no conspiracy here on this subject. I believe that both agencies and County EMS should hold public meetings to answer questions about the system. I can assure you the disparity lays at the employee level and not at the top. When most of the fire departments in this county went to the engine based paramedic program, the ambulance contract was modified to maximize the tax payer’s dollars in a way to benefit the county and the private ambulance company that took the bid. The County EMS agency requires there to be two paramedics on 911 medical emergencies with the first one being on scene within a certain time frame. In Walnut Creek, for example, that is accomplished by having one paramedic responding on the fire engine, with the second paramedic coming from the responding ambulance. This allows AMR the ability to staff their ambulances with one paramedic and one EMT (cheaper combination), rather than with two paramedics in areas where there are engine based paramedics. In Richmond, for example, (where those firefighters are not paramedics) AMR must staff the ambulances with two paramedics, while in Con Fire’s jurisdiction, they can do the one and one system. Since East County fire does not have paramedic engines, they (County EMS and AMR) decided to place the (QRV's), a Quick Response Vehicle, staffed with one paramedic in a SUV. This person makes one of the two medics. The reason they don't rely on two medics being in the ambulance in East County is due to the response times and distances the ambulance would have to travel. The first paramedic must arrive on scene by a certain time established by county EMS. AMR would have to place more ambulances in East County in order to meet that requirement. It is less expensive for AMR to provide the single paramedic (QRV). Not to mention, once an ambulance picks up a patient, it is out of service as it transports the patient to the ER. In East County, the closest ER is in Antioch. Fire Engines respond to all 911 medical emergencies (even if there is a fire going on at the same time). They would be able to provide for one of the two paramedics on the scene and AMR would provide the other, via the ambulance. The QRV system was to be in place until such a time where East County Fire could place paramedics on the engine. As far as Local 1230's benefit to having paramedics on the engine or not, it doesn't benefit us to the level it benefits the public. The benefit it has to us and our members is that we have a paramedic with us at all times when we are performing the duties of a firefighter. I personally have treated several of my colleagues, on a few times, with critical treatment. Again, there is no beef with us on this issue, it is a matter of public benefit, and all the stakeholders in the system should hold a public forum to get the facts about what is best for who and decide from there, if they want to pay for it. I believe that there would be some money available from the county to pay a portion of the cost. This is how it is done everywhere else. In Con Fire, El Cerrito, Pinole and Rodeo Hercules, most of the funding for the paramedic program comes from Measure H, not the general fund.
Finally, the Grand Jury Report: With all due respect to the members of the Grand Jury, I believe the report is way off. The article above mentions the many reports that have already been done that have all stated that the services out here were inadequate and that a source of revenue was needed. This has been well known prior to the 2008 recession. They only need to look back to their own report done in 2008 after a fire in Bethel Island.
Cal Fire, yes John is right, they are a perfectly qualified fire agency. I don't think John is accurate about rather they would be cheaper or not. I am not even sure if they would be interested in placing a bid for the area. The state is facing a significant budget shortfall as well, which is who funds Cal Fire. Also, since John mentioned the union versus Cal Fire, IAFF Local 2881 (Cal Fire's Union), has thousands of members versus our 400 members and we get along just fine.
Anyway, that is it for me. Again, I strongly suggest that people come out to the meeting on the 9th and attend one or two of the community meetings that are going on. That is the best place to get the facts. Professional Bloggers often apply their bias rather than the fact. I am also available to answer any questions anyone has regarding the "unions" point of view. Vwells@iafflocal1230.org
I only bring this up because of the horrible nature of this report. It's filled with contradictions and omissions. For example they claim CalFire as an option hasn’t been considered when it has and they claim service model proposals for the possibility of the ballot measure failing haven’t been formulated, when they have. If you read the document, it’s almost like they are saying they expect the District to continue existing service levels when the revenue will only support 3 and not quite 4 stations properly staffed. Perhaps they are expecting people to just plant money trees as an option?
I talked directly with the foreperson and he couldn’t give me a straight answer on how he determined that current service levels were “adequate”. Nor does the report offer ANY frame of reference for that statement. No mention of statistical data in support or National Fire Science standards. Nothing. Just pulled out of thin air, apparently.
This reports smells of someone carrying water for an interest out there. There has been some activity at District meetings by certain advocacy groups just immediately prior to this Grand Jury taking their seats and then taking up the issue. It’s not even certain to me that any of the 19 people on the GJ who could have weighed in on this are residents of the District. I’ve requested from the Jury’s Clerk a roster, but haven’t received that information as of yet. I’ve also asked pointed questions of key individuals who may have played a role in initiating this review and so far it’s been silent as far as any response. That doesn't help with my comfort level.
Don’t want to get the conspiracy cap on just yet, but there could be much more to this story. Of all the issues facing the County, why did this group pick this one, why did they do it immediately upon taking their seats and why did they ignore so much well documented history in the process?