On a 6-2 vote, the district board zeroed in on the goals of staffing its six current stations with three firefighters each (two stations, Knightsen and Bethel Island, currently staff only two firefighters); establishing a paramedic program at two as-yet unnamed stations; partially funding a new communication system and other equipment needs; and eliminating a $2.8 million annual operating deficit that threatens the district with insolvency next year.
The improvements and deficit elimination would cost about $4 million per year, which a new benefit assessment district levy of about $96 for the average single-family home would provide. A recent poll shows that 55 percent of the district’s residents would be willing to support that much, but no more.
The plan left significant holes in what residents would like to see. For example, it does not include re-opening either the Discovery Bay or Byron stations that were closed last year due to a lack of funding. Discovery Bay residents forcefully informed the board during the workshop that re-opening the stations would be needed to win votes there.
“If you really want their support, you have to commit in advance and say you’re going to re-open those stations,” said Jeff Barber.
That option, which would cost about $1.2 million per station, did not make the list, however. ECCFPD Board Chair Erick Stonebarger of Brentwood said that according to the most recent tax figures, Discovery Bay pays $1.4 million per year to the district for its single station, and he felt he could not sell the assessment to Brentwood voters if it included spending more money there.
Stonebarger went on to say that Discovery Bay currently has the best service in the district, per capita. The one station there serves a community of 15,000, while Brentwood’s two stations serve a population of 56,000 (28,000 people per station), and Oakley’s one station serves 35,000.
Stonebarger’s comments brought an angry response from Discovery Bay CSD board member Brian Dawson, who accused Stonebarger of thinking about Brentwood rather than the district as a whole. “I have a list of 3,500 e-mail addresses, and I’m going to tell them all what you just said,” Dawson said during one of three public comment periods at the workshop. “I don’t think you know how loud we are (in Discovery Bay),” he added.
Others at the meeting felt the district should ask for enough to meet all the district’s needs, including additional pay for firefighters. Director Robert Kenny of Bethel Island said the district should ask for what it needs one time, and make a major public relations effort to sell the public on it.
“If we’re going to raise taxes, we ought to do it at one time and do it right,” he said. “We should go for what we need.”
Although the total needed to do that has not been calculated, the consultants advising the board strongly advised against exceeding the psychological barrier of $100 per single-family home if they wanted voters to approve the assessment.
And while all the board members said they wanted the best for their residents and employees, it was clear that should the assessment fail, so would the district. The consensus was reached that the most important thing was to keep the district afloat.
“We’re in survival mode,” said Director Kevin Romick of Oakley. “People have to understand that if this fails, we will shut down two more stations and lay off 12 more firefighters. Do we want to survive or do we ask for the moon at this time? My concern is that we survive, and continue to fight the battle another day.”
All the directors agreed that informing the public of the district’s needs and the consequences of failure would be key to getting a measure passed. The effort’s timeline was adjusted to allow a maximum amount of time to reach out to the public before sending out ballots for the mail-in election on June 1. At the request of Director Jim Frazier of Oakley, the board agreed to obtain proposals from public relations firms that might help pass the measure, in addition to the $25,000 worth of guidance the district has already paid for.
The election must be successfully completed before Aug. 10 in order to begin generating tax revenue in December. If the deadline is missed, it will be December of 2012 before tax dollars from another measure could begin flowing to the district, about six months after the reserves currently floating the district run out.
The board ordered the completion of the detailed engineer’s report the assessment would be based on, and asked that it be brought back to them for a final decision on April 4. Minor adjustments could be made at that point, or the board could decide against any assessment at all.
Stonebarger, Robert Brockman, Steve Barr and Joel Bryant of Brentwood, plus Oakley’s Pat Anderson and Romick voted to proceed at the $96 level and the $4 million for improvements. Director Frazier of Oakley and Kenny voted no.
It is a fact that the dependence of POC's as first responders has changed considerably. I agree. It does not mean they are useless and not cost effective under general circumstances. In fact, they provide a great source of carry over recruits to career firefighters. I was just responding to your "muster up" comment. The real subject here is funding. I agree again.
The application of funding by form of a new tax is relative. More funding is needed and the past lack of action is mute at this point. Looking forward to achieve maximum service for the dollar is the key to success.
I disagree with your comment regarding paramedic engines;
"Having a Paramedic or not doesn't change the availability of the engine".
In general terms, an engine paramedic who provides IV fluids of any sort is committed or should be committed to that patient until hospitalized and turned over to an MD. Policies may be different from where you were a paramedic. This type situation could delay an engine from another call is a logical point. At this time I believe there are more important issues for funding needs in my opinion.
New taxes should re-open closed fire stations and add firefighters, not buy new equipment and add paramedics as has been reported. Adding Paramedics should come after the original crisis is solved.
In addition, Station 96 at Cypress and Bethel Island Road should have been built by now from the developer. This station should be staffed first too.
The application of where the new funds go will determine my vote, is all I'm saying.
The recognition of " Independent District " by LAFCO is also conditional of my support.
I respect your opinion, this is my opinion.
OK, Im done
It was not my intent to re-engage in the same old arguments. We have always needed to focus on funding sources for the district.
My comments regarding volunteers or the POCs is to say that we keep going back to this subject and reliving the past. The problem is revenue now and it was back then. It is difficult to find people who live in the community who are not working their own jobs, many of them out of town. With the growth in East County the POC program is more difficult to maintain. Roads are more congested and the OSHA standards for firefighters has increased to where it is not as practical. I will say that in some smaller communities with a lesser call volume, a combination program may be efficient.
Regarding the Paramedic. A engine with a paramedic is just like one without except for the skill level and ability to provide ALS. Having a Paramedic or not doesn't change the availability of the engine. I know this because I am a paramedic on my engine. Once AMR arrives on scene care is transfered to them and the engine becomes available. If the patients condition requires more hands then we stay longer or even ride in the back with AMR. This occurs regardless of if the firefighter is a paramedic or not. The call dictates this. I would agree though that the priority should be to focus on the fire protection component first and to work on the paramedic portion once the funding has been secure. Finally, AMR is a great organization and we have a great relationship with them throughout the county. An ALS Fire engine supplements their services and provides for faster ALS intervention.
Paramedic firefighters would not be replacing them.
If this thread is going to continue to be the blame game and not one that offers solutions then consider this my last post as well. We have been at that for the 6 years i have been involved.
The difference is you will now have two Paramedics accompanying the patient to the hospital.
Common sense dictates two paramedics (ALS) are a better level of service than one. Is is it necessary for two paramedics on one scene? It depends on the circumstances.
My point was the engine that the paramedic is on could be tied up from responding to a second call. East County is growing yes, but it's not the " big city " with several stations in a closer proximity. In fact, we have less fire service now than ever before in east county for the past twenty years. Just one engine tied up today could be the difference between life and death on a second call. Our AMR services have been outstanding as far as I have seen. AMR is not broken so it does not need to be fixed.
New tax funding would be best spent to re-open fire stations and add firefighter personel not medical personnel and new equipment. We already have AMR and New Construction fees for that.
While I certainly do not speak for the entire Knightsen Community, I can say I have witnessed closely the actions of the union for over twenty years and see those results today. Union members in this district remain underpaid and do not have the assistance of POC's thus working twice as hard. You should have assisted Supervisor Mary Piepho seven years ago to correct this problem. We would have 3 firefighters for every engine and the firefighters would be paid 30% more. Instead, energy was spent to derail the POC program.
Speaking of POC's, union politics is the cause of loosing that manpower.
Your statement is so disingenuous;
"If you can muster up those 26 volunteers for Knightsen it would help free up money for those communities that want full time firefighters at their fire stations"
These are the kind of rhetoric statements that are made as they twist the knife in the volunteer’s backs. One day a letter comes out supporting POC's. The next day, finding every excuse in the world to stop them from being a part of the district. The original true intent of the ECCFPD merger was " a combination district ". Read it Mr. Wells in the LAFCO Documents. POC's do not pay union dues to your coffers; of course they must be eliminated. The public looses by this type of politics.
It was union members that locked POC's out of two stations ( #93 and #94 ) and you say,
"can you muster up volunteers? ". There were about 70 firefighter volunteers to supplement this district. When you got finished there are now maybe ten left. The POC subject is a sore point with allot of folks in East County. It done now, time to move on.
My vote of support can only be attained by promising to reopen up all the fire stations, the funding of the new tax go only to adding firefighters ( operating budget) , and the total recognition by LAFCO that ECCFPD is independent. I think there are many citizens that feel the same way. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.
Here we are 5 years later: Local control has been established and the AV has gone down almost 12%. The district was underfunded back then, and is now even worse. Now finally a tax is being considered.
I agree with Mr. Mankin that this problem is not due to the BOS. This is due to the current tax laws established back in the late 70’s when East County was all rural.
To clarify a statement that was made at the end of one of Mr. Manikin’s post, we have not agreed to support this measure at this point. We are concerned that the amount requested will only bring us back to where we started. We are waiting for the results of the Engineer Report and are waiting for more details on the service delivery model planned if it passes. At the present time we remain hopeful and neutral.
I agree with Mr Gonzalez when he says this is one Fire District. All stations are strategically located throughout the community and serve the entire district. They are constantly moving from community to community. Remember, we send 5 engines to every structure fire, (15 firefighters in most of the county but 13-15 in East County). None of the individual communities have 5 stations themselves. Also, people don’t take turns calling 911, nor do they wait until “their” engine returns from another incident prior to calling. The sooner everyone understands this fact the sooner we can move on past this point to come up with a solution that resolves the financial shortfall this district has suffered since its inception in 2002. By the way, the Firefighters in East County make over 50% less then the other firefighters in the county, so they are not the blame.
A couple more points. Having Paramedics on an engine does not put it out of service anymore then one without a Paramedic due to a serious medical call as stated by Mr. Gonzales. If a medical call is severe enough to need that Fire Paramedic to continue with the patient to the hospital, it would most likely require a BLS (Basic Life Support) firefighter to assist the AMR Paramedic if it was a BLS engine on the same call. The difference is you will now have two Paramedics accompanying the patient to the hospital. This is a higher level of care. Also Mr Gonzales, if you can muster up those 26 volunteers for Knightsen it would help free up money for those communities that want full time firefighters at their fire stations if you speak for all of Knightsen.
Finally, for the public’s information, ECCFPD is currently staffed with 6 full time fire stations. 4 of the stations are staffed with three personnel 24/7 per station, per shift. The 2 other stations are staffed with only two personnel per shift, per station. None of the firefighters are functioning as paramedics. This service level is well below industry standard and the standards within the county in other fire service agencies. Please come out to the next meeting on April 4 to learn more. News articles and personal opinions are not the best way to learn about this serious issue.
We have a long way to go to solve this problem. Thank you all for staying involved and looking for solutions!
My letter to the editor written prior to these comments is as follows;
It is very promising to see our fire service moving forward after several years of neglect by the county. Many concerns should be considered when discussing what the new proposed tax funding would be used for.
The first concern that comes to my mind is the added paramedic. One must keep in mind that when an engine company responds with a paramedic as part of the crew, closing out a response call to back up another engine may be delayed because the paramedic must remain on scene. In some cases the entire engine company may be out of service due to a medical call. This hinders back up on other emergencies. Adding additional firefighters to an engine is fantastic. Please keep in mind the draw backs that may occur with a paramedic as part of an engine crew.
A question to answer for the residents and taxpayers is, Will any current QRV's be eliminated? They are the current paramedics and have separate vehicles. If any are eliminated, the county will pay (I believe) $80,000 dollars per engine out of taxes we already pay not part of the fire district taxes. So what is the benefit over and above with this new tax as it pertains to a paramedic?
The next concern is the comments about capitol funds issues (improvements, new engines, vehicles, etc.). This new proposed tax should not need to go to any improvements or equipment. Those funds have been generated by development and are unable to be used as operating costs such as salaries for firefighters or new hires. If the capitol funds are low, the fee structure should be adjusted upward accordingly on new construction. This does not take a vote or a benefit assessment to achieve. Therefore, it is not necessary to be part of a new tax.
One more concern is the separation of unity in this district by communities. This “I pay more” and “you pay less” is just counterproductive. The “All Mine” attitude is hurting progress of the District. While, I live in Knightsen that pays short of full time firefighters costs. We never asked for them. The community has always been happy with our 26 POC's. But that is not the issue. The Knightsen engine company whether full time, career, POC, or volunteer has been in every City and Community in East County helping save lives and property. That’s all that matters. Just like the Oakley Engine has been in Bethel Island, the Brentwood engine has been in Discovery Bay and so forth. It is a team effort. This selfishness needs to stop in order for our Fire District to unify and progress.
If this method of thinking continues, I see the City of Brentwood creating it’s own Fire Department and using CDF as a contract service.
In closing, I support adding firefighters to the District with a special benefit assessment only if the money goes towards the operating budget, the District becomes recognized by LAFCO as independent, and the tax re-opens all closed stations with those funds.
At this time it does not appear to be happening.
I hope that Rick still prints this in The Press as this forum covers only a fraction of readers and will likely be out of control very soon.
I’m just trying to make clear for interested readers that your distractive BS is just that. It’s in no way a problem solving effort. The only reason I have a better handle on this than you is I’ve invested in the homework while you’ve spent your time arm waving and demanding someone fix it for you.
Jeff, your neighbor Mark tells me you're an extremely intelligent man and you've bragged repeatedly in this forum that you have candidates for various elected and appointed positions in the wings with superior fiscal skills from the private sector. Yet no one from your camp can offer a single detail on a fiscal plan that could have averted this? I find that astounding.
But this is where preparation meets opportunity. There is an opening on the ECCFPD for the unincorporated areas. The window is now open for applications. Now is the time for someone from your group to stand up with all of those incredible ideas and talent you’ve been promoting for years and step up to the plate. In fact, I think you personally should apply, Jeff. I’ll even put in a good word for you with Supervisor Piepho!
So how about it?
Once again, your dilution suggestion junk is just that. New parcels pay full share just like you. The problem has been the formulas, further evidenced by the per capita contribution in ECCFPD being only half of what it is in neighboring ConFire($94 vs $192, see MSR). As I fully expected you would, you threw that out without any effort whatsoever to see if it even passes muster for a meaningful funding mechanism.
The population of Far East County has exploded in the last 10 years, with Brentwood seeing a 120% increase in population alone, according to recent census figures. It would seem to make sense that needs here have reached a point where gov’t services being local would make sense. Some people would like to have the access without having to drive to Martinez. You obviously disagree based on your comment about the gov't center.
P-6 is not an optional condition of approval. It’s a countywide revenue enhancement requirement in place since the 80s. The County is required to provide police services, so this would seem appropriate.
On the other hand, fire services is not something the County is legally required to provide you……Read that again. So your comparisons of P-6 to what could have been for fire is inappropriate. It’s apples to oranges. Not to mention, just imagine the volume of yelling you would have engaged in had the BoS tried to hand down a tax out of Martinez for said services. You’d be complaining with this same bogus dilution argument as you have been for years now on the police services side.
But let’s get to the heart of your first post, because it’s the second time this week you’ve attacked the Supervisor on this. What precisely did she fail to do? Which developments have come before her did she fail to consider a “fire tax” or some other mitigation within her purview that could have in any meaningful way filled the current $6.5M need?
In the only instance that immediately impacts you, the Discovery Bay West project had the new fire station 59 built as it’s fulfillment for mitigation and that was 7 years before she took office. The building of that station would also seem to shoot a hole in your dilution theory. I didn’t live here at the time, so I don’t know if the fire district problem was deemed as acute when DB West was approved in 1997, which is when the sitting BoS would have had to act.
So explain how the Supervisor has failed to act in specific instances so that we don’t have to recognize this for what it is; your ongoing petty vendetta with her.
Developer Impact Fees within the cities are set and collected for the cities. They don’t feed the operational budget of ECCFPD. Brentwood for a period of time funded a 3rd man on a truck, but that was via assessment monies, not DIFs. They are not legally bound to do that.
I notice how you’re always good with putting taxes for services on someone else, when your liability is simply determined by your lot location and when it was built. It has nothing to do with when you moved into the community. It’s an inequitable answer, but the only one you’ve ever offered.
But as you stated, you’re out of this thread, so I’m just talking to myself.
If you’re seriously interested in where I stand on the proposed assessment, I bet you could ask any of the 20 or so firefighters who were in attendance in uniform and in support of the issue. I’ll bet they were paying attention and can figure it out. Clearly you weren’t.
I will however make a couple clarifying remarks and ask you one very simple question. I will not be posting any more comments related to this article.
Clearly the way tax money is handled in CA is F ---ed-up. But that said I do not give a pass to elected officials who use the overall system for an excuse to be lazy and continue wasteful spending trends. Piepho’s quest to spend millions building a county government center is Brentwood is completely wasteful. Her spending tax money on a soda pop abatement program is insulting. Specific to the fire issue….how does this BoS sit by for all these years and not employ Conditions of Approval aimed at generating fire district specific operating revenue (like the P-6 funding) from all the new housing tracts that have been (and will continue to be) jammed into this part of the county and caused the dilution of services? If it is so well known that the tax system is broken…why not employ established methods to circumvent to the problem (like has been done for police services)?
So mankin….bottom line…..yes or no, are you going to support the proposed $97 fire tax, in its present configuration, if it ends up on the ballot?
That being said, I think it is disrespectful of you to dismiss the ongoing efforts of Mr. Kenny, who still sits on the board and represents the unincorporated areas.
Finally, it must be noted that you share some ownership for what will be a longer than usual appointment process for a replacement after the little stunt that was pulled over the Cemetery District spot. But I have every confidence that you will export that responsibility to someone else shortly.
The problem facing the ECCFPD is quite clearly a revenue problem. Revenues are off 1/3 from just a couple years ago due to a dramatic drop in property taxes through which ECCFPD receives some 95 % of their revenues. The District is quite simply a victim for two primary reasons; one is obviously the economy and the second is from the funding formulas locked in through Prop 13 and AB8 in the late 70s. That worked when this was largely a rural area. It does not work when the District has grown dramatically in population. We are essentially trying to fund 2011 fire service needs with 1978 funding models. It doesn’t compute.
That being said and since you repeatedly make this same, tired pitch, I want you to explain EXACTLY and in fiscal terms what the County Board of Supervisors was supposed to have done to head off the current fiscal crisis. Be specific and be clear on how that action would be creating the approximate $6.5M funding shortfall the District currently has and needs to properly reopen stations, staff with 3/0 and include ALS services district wide.
To make your task easier, I offer the following salient points to consider in your pursuit of this grand plan:
- The district does not and cannot received County General Fund dollars.
- There are approx. 44,000 parcels and 105,000 people served by the district. The parcel count stat is important for any tax proposal calculations.
- Local officials have been negotiating for transfer of governance of the District to local control for 8 years or better
- According to the County’s most recent Municipal Service Review, the District has CAPEX needs that are significant and to date have largely been left out of the discussion of funding needs.
- The District has been operated on a shoestring budget for many years. To the point where beyond any reasonable doubt there is no fat to be cut. There is only bone.
- Union members are paid below grade of surrounding districts and have made multiple concessions in an effort to keep this difficult situation solvent.
On this last point, I’m well aware of your backdoor suggestion for union busting through a bankruptcy effort. I can only hope your attack on the rank and file dies the quiet death that your CalFire boondoggle did the other evening when it was brought to your attention the idea you’ve been pushing for nearly a year would cost 80% more than the current operational budget.
With these facts in mind and in 5500 words or less, explain in detail with dollars and cents support what the BoS should have done to head this off.
Go.
This board has been in place for over a year and it was clear from their very first meeting that they were going to, sooner than later, seek voter approval for additional revenue. But on Monday night, over a year into it, they were still chasing their tails regarding important election preparation matters that should have been and easily could have been addressed months ago. I have more confidence in my son’s first grade class being able run the fire district than this group.
I still don’t know if it was ignorance or an attempt at pure manipulation that caused Brentweed councilman and fire board Chair stonebarger to keep saying Discovery Bay when he should have been referring to the entire Eastern segment of the fire district that he is responsible for. If it wasn’t such an important matter it would have been comical when he accused Discovery Bay [sic] of not paying its far share when just moments before they had voted to INCREASE service and staffing for the Kinghtsen and Bethel Island stations. Although he shouldn’t do it, one can almost understand his self-serving actions but I do not believe there is any excuse for being disingenuous.
For those who live, work, travel-through or recreate-in the Eastern part of the this county/fire district a key point is, all things considered and recognizing the service levels provided to the rest of the district…. one fire engine (with back-up at least 15 minuets away) is not sufficient to cover the large square mile territory, three busy commercial transit corridors, an airport, 4 schools, multiple primary delta access points and ≈ 20,000 residents that make up the Eastern segment of this fire district.
The only hope we have of truly improving our overall fire safety & advanced life support services is to come together as multiple communities, with a common goal, to defeat this Benefit Assessment at the ballot box. If it passes the problems of this entire fire district will be ongoing and we will never have adequate coverage throughout the district. If it fails they will have to come up with a better plan that looks beyond a partial-fix favorable only (on a short-term basis) to the Brentwood and Oakley city council members who presently populate the board.
This board, from day one all the way through this Monday, refused to consider bolder and more aggressive long-term/permanent solutions that would enhance public safety and quality of life for the entire district.
I firmly believe this board and the BoS have done a year-long injustice to all of the residents of this fire district and to the fire fighters the district employs.