New countywide fire service needed
Feb 16, 2012 | 888 views | 6 6 comments | 24 24 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Editor:

It is a good bet that the proposed ECCFPD supplemental tax will fail. It is too open-ended, it does not provide fundamental solutions, it pits community against community, it does not take in leveraging opportunities … and the 66-percent requirement for passage is just too high for an expensive supplemental tax this nebulous and controversial.

It is my opinion that right now this plan for a new tax needs to be pulled (before it fails at the ballot box) and the ECCFPD needs to go back to the Board of Supervisors (BoS). Although it has done a terrible job of dealing with the two county fire departments, unfortunately only the BoS can deal with the situation in the manner and time frame necessary to effect the kind of real change needed to position the county’s fire/EMS service for success into the future.

The BoS needs to step back in and devise a bold solution. That solution is a brand new fire/EMS department.

Key point: I do not think a merger of Con Fire and ECCFPD is the solution. The solution must be a new fire/EMS entity that pulls from the predicate districts but uses a new reality approach to organization, configuration, compensation, financing and taxation. This will not be simple or pain free, but the pain associated with the status quo and a failed tax measure will be worse.

This is a slightly refined/expanded suggestion that was made to the new fire board two years ago:

A) Construct a brand new fire/EMS department, completely getting rid of Con Fire and the ECCFPD.

B) Disband the county’s internal EMS department (put the savings on the street).

C) Put EMS under the new fire department and start/develop an association with a regional EMS agency (there are already five of these in the state).

D) Implement a P-District/Zone like fire/EMS operation tax for all new housing developments under county control. Seek an agreement from the cities to do the same.

E) Configure fire crews, EMS and response times strategically, tactically and individually for each unique area. The same crew size/configuration for every area should not be an expectation.

F) Put on a future ballot an incremental tax plan (if necessary) that is calculated after the implementation of A through E.

Key Point: In part A of the suggested plan, the basic premise would have to be that Con Fire’s current pay/benefit plan would not be the overlay for the new fire department. A tiered pay/benefit plan would have to be developed based on current times, reality and a realistic outlook that can be paid for without racking up huge debt or recreating the pattern of ongoing financial trouble the two current fire departments have exhibited.

A new, well-structured, fully leveraged fire/EMS department would bring long-term stability to the employees and be a tangible/smart solution that residents countywide would rally around and feel better about investing additional tax resources (if necessary) into. But to get to that point, the BoS needs to step up now. If it doesn’t, it will have to shoulder a big part of the blame when the tax measure fails.

Jeff Barber, Discovery Bay

Comments
(6)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
gavin.consveer
|
February 16, 2012
I could agree with restructuring the fire departments as there is a lot of fat that could be trimmed, but I do not agree with tying EMS to the fire service so strictly. EMS being handled by the fire service is one of the fundamental reasons that EMS systems in this country are severely lacking compared to numerous other systems in developed nations around the world. EMS needs to be tied strictly to the medical community and go from there, not separated from it and placed with the fire department.
Dave's_longlost_Brother
|
February 16, 2012
So they spent more money on a flier for the tax than they saved by closing the Discovery Bay and Byron stations? Really?

Sure, I trust these guys....with your money!

What do you think Dave?
John_Gonzales
|
February 16, 2012
I think Barber makes sense for several reasons. The first and most important is the stance on this new tax by the Fire District. They are all take and very little give when it comes to non vital parts of the tax. We all know that paramedics are not needed immediately as we already have and pay for them with another different tax. We also know that contracting out is feasible and cost effective through Cal Fire. We further know this district has eliminated any possibility of POC's because of the union pressure. Finally we know this new tax is far too connected to special interest demands rather than true consideration of the public’s pocket book. Since the politicians will only listen to special interest, the only tool we have left for them to listen to the people is a vote. Each vote will send a message either way. If it passes then the will of the people have spoken. If it fails, the Board of Supervisors needs to take serious consideration to Mr. Barbers approach.

That sky is falling $60,000 flyer that we paid the district to send us could have been a bit more truthful. I’m disappointed at the misinformation allowed to go out on it.

The Board of Supervisors should begin the process of brainstorming for a new County Fire.
Dwelly
|
February 18, 2012
Gavin.Consverr it is truly sad that YOU as a local paramedic that works for a profit type organization that holds stock on the market would make an obvious comment in an attempt to save your cush job very sad indeed. How about whats best for US the public very sad.
gavin.consveer
|
February 19, 2012
Nice try Dwelly, but your attack doesn't hold any water 1) I don't work as a local paramedic, 2) I don't hold any stocks besides a 401k and I haven't specifically picked any companies in that 3) when you refer to local ambulance having stock you are mistaken as the contracted ambulance company in this county hasn't been on the stock market for quite some time.

You missed my point entirely. Keeping EMS tied to the fire service is one of the reasons that it is not advancing like it has in other countries. To separate it and get it back in line with the medical community would improve the system and ultimately improve patient outcome and survival. I have to ask how do you see that as not being what is best for US the public? You want to continue to live with an out dated EMS system model which lacks the ability to grow accordingly with the rest of the medical community?
gavin.consveer
|
February 19, 2012
And just to make it clear and spell it out for you (because it seems like I have to do that with you), I never said EMS should be under a private/for profit company either. The best possible EMS system would not be associated with or provided by a private company or the fire department.
Postings are not edited and are the responsibility of the author. You agree not to post comments that are abusive, threatening or obscene. Postings may be removed at the discretion of thepress.net.