My compliments to Mr. Towns for his well reasoned comments (“Old formula insufficient for new reality,” Brentwood Press, Aug. 19, 2011) suggesting the East County fire tax formula is out of date and needs revision. The East County growth since 1970 has been truly phenomenal, and has been subjected to constantly escalated fire and building codes (my house even has fire sprinklers built into it – a code requirement, I understand).
These constantly escalated codes have greatly increased builders’ costs and have resulted in greatly increased tax revenue realized from each building permit and from each new structure. At the same time, the escalated codes have resulted in greatly reduced fire hazards and frequency. This has no doubt resulted in a shift from firefighting calls to EMT calls, yet fire trucks still roll to EMT calls.
Mr. Towns suggested that compensation inequities exist between the local district and “many Bay Area cities.” A growing public scandal has resulted from government officials at all levels granting compensation, pension, and benefit increases to public employee unions without obtaining voter approval for such increases, which amount to illegal tax increases. I hope correction of the inequities Mr. Towns suggests is not the real reason for the proposed fire tax increase.
Tom Coss, Brentwood
So, I bow to you MR. Bob Mankin the almighty.
I wish you luck in molding your fire district into what you believe is the ultimate solution.
As always I will not support a new tax for a premature paramedic program when we already pay for one now. To change my support would be to change the use of my new tax dollars for a paramedic program I already pay for.
Its very simple to understand my opinion. Even a fifth grader could. This is my last response to you on this Bob. You'll have to find some else to play your game.
The proposal is to fund an 8 station model with 3 man engines. Locations of those are TBD. So it’s unclear how you make statements like the tax could staff a new Brentwood station, but isn’t.
Shouldn’t you first concern yourself with the $3M or so it would cost to build that station and how one comes up with that money in these difficult economic times before worrying about staffing it? The recently opened Oakley station is the result of many years of developer revenue during better times.
The County Administrator doesn’t have very rosy projections for out to 2018. You’re not going to be able to stand pat waiting for new stations to materialize before passing a revenue measure to keep the District running. It’s that sort of thinking that has so far CRIPPLED this Board from acting on this obvious revenue need. We need less of that indecisiveness, not more.
On Sept 1 @ 9:29am you stated “I can’t support that” in reference to the tax proposal. Have no idea how you dreamed up it gives the union more power over the Commission.
Then today @ 11:35 am it’s “thus my support for the tax”.
Color me confused. I guess I’ll have to hope the wind is blowing the right direction on the day you cast your vote.
The ECCFPD fire ad hoc committee was meeting as late as this afternoon to discuss staffing model recommendations. As such, none have been formally proposed to or voted on by the full Board. So I’m completely lost on how you reach some of the conclusions you do.
The proposal for Paramedics doesn’t alter or delay staffing of 3 in a station in any way, shape or form. Again, not sure where or how you got the idea it did. Assuming the revenue measure passes, the Paramedic program would be phased in over a period of years. As it comes online, one of the 3 men on an engine becomes a combination firefighter/Paramedic. It doesn’t take away from fire fighting in any way nor does it hinder staffing for fire suppression in the near or long term.
John, you go from union bashing to support of between two posts a few days apart. I just wish you’d pick a side and run with it. This all over the map posting style of yours coupled with your trying to pass opinions off as facts is doing the readership a disservice and unnecessarily complicating the issue.
"The Cypress station is a conditional for the Summer Lakes project in Oakley".
Yes, Bob thats common sense. The station was suppose to be built after the first house was occupied. Since the Fire District did not have the revenue to staff it, the station is suppose to be built after the 600 hundreth home. However, the District would need revenue for staffing (thus my support for a tax). This is where you attempt to twist my comment. The new tax could staff that station and the proposed new Brentwood station. This tax has no plan to do that. Again, placing paramedics prior to full staffing in my opinion is another way of putting the cart before the horse and will create problems when new staffing is needed.
Bob, I do not need to hear people like you ramble gibberish at a meeting to keep up with the facts.
I never stated to use this or any new taxes for structures. That doesn't even make sense and would be unproductive to the district. We all know they have a revenue source for new structures.
Your entire comment is another joke at attacking me rather than addressing reality.
I’ve advocated strongly for more than a year now for getting the department proper resources which would not only improve the staffing situation outright, but get the rank and file away from 2 man engines which are a hazard to their own safety. You probably don’t realize that because I don’t recall seeing you at any meetings for over a year now. Instead you mail it in through the online forums and couldn’t possibly be aware of actions and comments within the commission meetings.
The Cypress station is a conditional for the Summer Lakes project in Oakley. As such, the cost of building that station falls on the builder, Shea. Not on the taxpayers within the District. Your post seems to suggest you want to tax the District again for that cost now. Similarly, any new station in Brentwood would come through developer fees and not from the residents directly. If you disagree with timelines of the building of those new stations, arguing that case during the project approval process would be the more appropriate venue.
I’m a little confused, because some days you come in here railing how elected officials should have put that burden on the developers(when it already existed) and now you seem to suggest the taxpayers should pony up for new infrastructure before Paramedics. You seem to be trying to hold one revenue source hostage so that you can get your way with another. They are two different streams of funding, not fully connected.
A little more consistency and a little less misinformation on your part would help as the mountain to climb to promote this needed revenue enhancement is steep enough as it is.
But in the interest of moving forward, I think that both you and Bob make some completely legitimate points. For instance the idea that if QRVs were elimated by placing medics on engines then all the medics could potentially be committed fighting a fire.....can't really argue with that logic. The only thing I can say for certain is that during instances when all our units are working an incident any unit that moves up to cover is going to have a paramedic. So in the case of the Knightsen Complex we had units from both Con Fire and ALCO covering our district. Both agencies are already ALS so we actually had more paramedics in district during that fire than before. But what really needs to happen is scenarios such as that need to be laid out with the pros and cons if you will and then input must be given to the fire board.
There are several reasons paramedics are part of the "proposed" service model. One of them being to reach an operational milestone with like kind resources/services as compared to the level of service being provided elsewhere in the county. Another is to give the taxpayer more for their money....as Bob pointed out you can get another firefighter for x amount of money and for a little more we can make it a fire/medic. So I guess you could call it a selling point for the tax, what the tax is predominantly intended for is getting more bodies on engines. It's not a tax to fund paramedics. We can not allow this tax to be torpedoed over paramedics. If the public and especially those members of the community that understand the system would prefer the current arrangement plus more firefighters then the board needs to hear that and take it into consideration before the service model and the tax are finalized.
This District is grown up, proffessional, well equiped, and with good leadership.
The problem is lack of support and involvement by our Supervisor Piepho. The only involvement from her was to dump the district from her responsibility.
These firefighters are doing all they can with the resources they were left with. They need more firefighters not paramedics.
A great example of an entity looking ahead is the City of Oakley. They have a mello roos fund specific for fire. That should have been done through our supervisor for the entire district.
Bob you obviously do not see the entire picture and it's future. The district does not need to put the cart before the horse. This has already happened too many times before because of special interest influence.
The way this TAX is proposed to be spent will give the union more control over the Fire Commission and their power of decission and direction. Sorry, I can't support that.
Changing how the money is spent will change my mind on support.
Quibbling over 3 cents a day seems completely silly. There is a full minute difference in average response in areas of the District for an engine versus the QRVs, with the engines having the better response times. The average ambulance response time is several minutes longer. In a medical emergency, 1 minute could make the difference between life and death. A responding QRV with a single Paramedic is going to be limited in terms of what they can do.
Talk to one of the professional fire fighters. There are stories in recent times here in East County where having a Paramedic on an engine could have made the difference in a victim making it or not. You really want to roll the dice over 3 cents?
I believe you are mistaken assuming a QRV and an ambulance on scene equates to 3 Paramedics.
The special tax proposed would be for the operations budget. Not sure how or why you're suggesting new station builds as that is not on the table here.
As for the tax, I totally agree a new tax is needed. However, as I understand what this money will be used for I can't support it at all. The reason is that a tax for paramedic costs to implement now is also premature. The district has several years before it can not only afford paramedics and all the associated costs but truly use them to their full potential. When a fire call is responded to ( if there is a paramedic on the engine, that paramedic is tied up at that scene ). This has already happened recently where all the engines were tied up on a structure fire in Oakley and a 911 medical was responded with delay. Fortunately, an AMR Ambulance and a QRV ( three paramedics ) were able to get there in time. Today, when a medical is dispatched we may get an ambulance with two paramedics, a QRV with one paramedic, and a fire engine with three firefighters trained in EMT. That’s pretty good coverage. The tax is needed to increase the quantity of personnel and equipment not improves the credentials of the existing. That change should come later as a supplement. If we pass this tax, we will be relieving the County health department of medical paramedic response on QRV's. We already pay taxes for the ambulance and QRV’s medical paramedic response. Why would we want to tax ourselves again with a fire tax to put paramedics on engines so the county can save money by dropping the (paramedic) QRV’s. I would rather see all stations re-opened with three or four fire personnel, the proposed new stations built and staffed with three or four than delay the expansion in order to place a paramedic on the engines when we already have them provided by the county. In addition, the amount of medical supplies thrown away by a small district such as ours will be another huge waste of money. I simply think the way I've been told the new tax money would be spent is premature and will be problematic for the future expansion of the district.
Im sorry I failed to address your comment regarding the "escalated codes, increased builders costs, increased revenue etc.".
The fact of the matter is that while having fire sprinklers required for all new construction is an added cost it is not significant enough to have a profound effect on the overall cost of the project and certainly does not drive up the cost of permits or developer fees enough to result in a significant increase of revenue for public services. I do know that the fact that you have residential sprinklers should save you money on your insurance though.
In addition to that, any permit or developer fees collected for new construction can only be spent on specific items such as purchasing of equipment or for example a new fire station and apparatus to protect that area. The fees can only be used for those type items and are not recurring funds. What that translates into is plenty of money for equipment but no money for staffing. Recurring property taxes are what actually go toward the day to day operation. I don't have the specific numbers in front of me so I won't try to give specifics but in a nutshell we receive roughly half the tax money that is routinely allocated from prperty taxes for other agencies(due to Prop 13).
As far as the need for fire service in a community that requires residential fire sprinklers, one thing you have to realize is that residential and even commercial systems for that matter are only designed to keep a fire in check and slow the extension of a fire long enough for the fire department to arrive before it gets out of control. Look at what happened recently in the city of Roseville, a small fire was set in the Galleria Mall and the fire department was not allowed by police to enter the structure due to safety concerns. The mall was protected by systems far superior to those protecting your home but without firefighters being able to attack the seat of the fire it burned unchecked and eventually overwhelmed the system and nearly one quarter of the mall was lost. The bottom line is that if your home is protected by sprinklers the likelyhood of having a truly catastophic fire is diminished but in most cases I will still need to make entry into a hazardous environment and physically put it out.
You also asked a question, why are fire engines still rolling to medical calls? In many cases we are closer than the ambulance and often times those calls can be labor intensive requiring multiple personnel. For instance a cardiac arrest, care needs to be initiated within minutes to prevent brain death and if we are unable to regain a pulse and respirations two firefighters may be required in addition to the two medics on the ambulance to continue life saving measures en route to the hospital. And that is not even taking into consideration any of the other complicating factors we might encounter such as a large patient in a second story for example. How about a vehicle accident with more than one vehicle and more than one passenger in each vehicle. It usually takes more than one medic or EMT to treat and package a patient for transport. Also consider if there are patients trapped in the vehicle. For a single vehicle with one patient trapped we are looking at a minimum of roughly 5 personnel being needed and I am only responding with 3 on the engine.
The bottom line here is that even if the staffing isn't needed on every single call whether it be fire or medical, when we do need it we need it in a hurry and it needs to be available. We've literally been working with half the resources for roughly half the pay since I started. There are districts over the hill where people are being paid far more than I am and their entire agency is running less calls than my engine company. Since I started here nearly 3/4 of the people I have seen retire have gone due to injury. We need more people in order to do our job safely and effectively serve the public. We need this tax more than most people seem to realize. Without it, cuts will be made, homeowners insurance rates will go up far more than the $186, and in the end they still won't have a viable functioning fire district. The potential for loss of life and property will be far greater than any insurance could replace.
I appologize for such long winded reponses, it's just difficult to try and explain in fewer words.
Your insinuation that we are looking for a tax in order to get a salary increase is simply offensive. However I am more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just don't have the full picture as far as the history of how we have gotten to this point of desperation to obtain funding.
Obviously there are many rural communities where a volunteer/paid on call system was perfectly appropriate and was a viable service model. This community was one of them for many years. Just ask one of the old volunteers and he'll tell you how great they were. And (no offense John) they'll also tell you how the greedy unions drove them out and took over......The truth of the matter is that yes it was a great system, these men and women provided a valueable service to their community but the fact remains that this is not the same community that existed 60 or 70 years ago. It's a bedroom community where most of its residents must commute in order to make their living. There simply aren't enough able bodied dedicated individuals left with the latitude to drop everything at a moments notice to respond to an emergency. A prime example of this is Knightsen's Station 94, immediately following consolidation in 2002 it was staffed entirely by paid on call personnel. Gradually overtime it became evident that response times were not up to minimum acceptable standards. Occasionally none of the paid on call staff would respond and E54 out of downtown Brentwood would have to take the call now 15 minutes old and responding fromo a distance. It happened often enough that E54 would be dispatched as a shadow to E94 and would cancel if someone showed. Eventually it got to the point where E54 was running so many of the calls for 94 that the need to staff the station was apparent. It wasn't anything the union wanted, it wasn't what the admin wanted, the POC's certainly didn't want it, but they weren't covering the calls and it was simply necessary. The result was that I lost the third person from my engine company to staff that station, which effected the efficiency of the company as well as my personal safety and my ability to serve this community.
So like I said for you to suggest that we are attempting to line our pockets with this tax is personally offensive to me. As it is right now we are attempting to provide a level of service that is barely adequate on a good day on a shoestring budget that was established to service the rural agricultural community that existed in the 60s and 70s. The idea that we need more revenue is a reality. We have always been underfunded and understaffed, but at this point we aren't going to be able to hang on much longer. Things are coming to a head and the reality that you and I will have to live with in less than a year will be a service model that will set us back nearly 25 years while we attempt to stay on top of a community that has swelled by probably 200% or more.
Tom, if you ever want to talk shop feel free to attend a fireboard meeting or visit your local firehouse. Our door is open to you and we will save you a place at the table.
Your Humble Peasant,
Brandon Earhart
Sta. 54 B