ECCFPD Director Jim Frazier offers Fire Chief Hugh Henderson a check for $197, the annual cost of Measure S to an individual taxpayer, to show his support for the fire tax district voters will approve or reject on June 5. Henderson said the money would be used for the district’s General Fund.
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Gil Guerrero, vice president of firefighters union Local 1230, speaks at Monday’s fire board meeting. Guerrero, as did others who spoke, asked the board to stick with three-person fire engine companies if the fire tax does not pass in June and up to half the district’s stations are closed.
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Fire Chief Hugh Henderson Monday presented the board with two scenarios that could be implemented if the tax fails and the district is forced to get by on the money it now receives. Plummeting property values in recent years have cut district revenue from $12 million to $8 million, and the reserves that have maintained district operations will run out next month.
The plans are “two flavors of sickening,” said Director Joel Bryant. One would close two more stations (Bethel Island and Knightsen would join the Discovery Bay and Byron stations closed in 2010) and staff the remaining four (two in Brentwood, one each in Discovery Bay and Oakley) with two firefighters each. The model would mean there are eight firefighters on duty in the district at any one time, and a total of 24 firefighters would be required. Nineteen of the district’s firefighters would be laid off.
The second plan includes closing one additional station, Brentwood’s downtown Station 54. That would leave open Brentwood’s Balfour Road station, plus the Oakley and Discovery Bay stations, each staffed by three firefighters. That plan would mean nine firefighters are always on duty in the district, and that 27 firefighters would keep their jobs (16 would be laid off).
Henderson said he strongly supports the three-station model, both for firefighter safety and because a three-person crew can do much more than a two-person crew. At a fire, three people are required before any rescue can be attempted (when no rescue is required, the federal “two-in, two-out” rule requires a fourth person on scene before a burning building can be entered). Vehicle accidents involving more than one patient, or medical emergencies involving heavy or immobile patients can also be taken care of by a three-person crew.
Three-person crews can also bring more than one piece of equipment to a scene. Many areas in the district lack fire hydrants, so the ability to send a 3,000-gallon water tender with the first-arriving engine can be critical.
Some board members said they leaned toward the four-station model because firefighters could be on scene earlier to more calls. However, Henderson said, since many emergency calls require three firefighters, those calls would require a second district engine and four firefighters to respond, utilizing more district resources than if a three-person crew were to respond. That in turn could negatively impact the response to subsequent calls. Last year, the district averaged 17 calls per day.
Either scenario would make a major impact on response times. First-arriving engines now average about six minutes, 27 seconds to arrive at emergency calls, but fewer stations could double that figure. Calls from downtown Brentwood and subdivisions to the east, for example, would jump from less than six minutes to 12 or 13. East Oakley and Knightsen would also see longer response times.
Calls in most of Bethel Island now require six minutes to reach. Should the tax fail and the Bethel Island station be closed, it could take 13 minutes for help to reach just the Bethel Island Bridge from Oakley, assuming the Oakley engine is in-station.
Under either scenario, non-emergency calls such as smoke investigations, floods and gas odors would no longer be responded to until a district engine is available. Currently, those calls get support from ConFire in Antioch. But since the ECCFPD would need assistance on more emergency calls (five engines are now dispatched to all structure fires, and ECCFPD would operate only three or four in the entire district), non-emergency aid would be eliminated to reduce the strain on ConFire resources. The ECCFPD already gets help from ConFire about twice as often as it provides assistance in return.
The new system would also make it harder for the district to assist itself. Even in areas where stations will remain open, the second-due engines will come from up to twice as far away, if they are available. Fewer engines mean more calls per engine, longer and more dangerous drives with lights and sirens, and more likelihood that backups will be busy on a call of their own.
Vince Wells, president of firefighter union Local 1230, told the board Monday that the sparse coverage reflected on maps they were looking at was the best-case scenario, and only possible if all engines are in-station when a call comes in. Responding from other places could make the travel time even longer, and the uncertainty of when backup would arrive would impact firefighters’ ability to deal with an emergency.
“It will make it harder to make life-or-death decisions not knowing if or when another crew is coming,” Wells said. “This is the position we’ll be put in if we have eight or nine guys to cover 250 square miles and 105,000 people. The firefighters are not going to be able to live up to your expectations if we have to go down to eight or nine.”
Measure S opponents have said the ECCFPD is top-heavy, and consideration should be given to reducing the number of fire captains, engineers and administrative personnel in favor of more firefighters at the bottom of the pay scale. This week, Henderson re-iterated that the suggestion doesn’t work.
“An engine company is a team,” he said. “Every team needs a leader – that’s the captain, an equipment manager, the engineer and a worker-bee firefighter. To effectively operate in an emergency situation, having a crew with all the right players is essential.”
The district now employs three battalion chiefs, one per shift. The other administration staff are Henderson and one administrative assistant who handles all the district paperwork, payroll, ordering, and staffs the front desk at the district office.
If Measure S passes, district property owners will pay $197 per year, plus up to 3 percent cost-of-living increase. In addition to keeping all current stations open, the tax would enable the district to add paramedics to its engines. The district is the only one in the county not providing paramedic services, which are now provided under a county contract with American Medical Response. That contract runs out in 2015, Henderson said, and it’s not certain that the far East County service it provides will be continued.
The original measure called for a 5-percent yearly maximum increase, but public feedback from dozens of information meetings held by district officials in recent months caused the board to scale it back. The result is that, even if the tax passes, more work will be needed to assure the district’s viability.
Henderson said that work is already under way. Talks with Local 1230, suspended until after June 5, have already resulted in union acknowledgment that changes in benefits will be needed. Base pay in the ECCFPD is already the lowest in the Bay Area.
Other measures could include eliminating things such as equipment replacement funds. Like reducing engine staffing to two, Henderson said he believes it’s a backward step that should not be taken.
“I feel very strongly about that,” he said Monday. “When we consolidated, we started building a modern, suburban fire district, and that’s what we need.”
Director Pat Anderson echoed the sentiments of the rest of the board when she said she hopes the tax will pass, and three- or four-station scenarios are not needed.
“These are choices you never want to make, but the choice isn’t necessarily ours, it’s the public’s,” she said. “I just hope the public really does hear the message.”
Want to know more about the ECCFPD?
Click here to read Part I in The Press' series about fire protection in East County, focusing on the history.
Click here to read Part II, which details a firefighter's job duties when not putting out flames.
Thanks for the feedback.
Rick
Your statement and dare can’t be taken seriously because ECCFPD has only been in existence for about ten years.
But they have managed to get the pension debt to eleven million dollars in the red. So, based on one million losses per year (just for pensions not for new firefighters), this tax is a money pit with no bottom.
In ten years from now it will double because no one will address it properly. Fix the problem before you throw new tax money into the pit. God bless our firefighters, shame on their union and the Board of Supervisors.
When the new tax measure is written fairly, the pension debt is addressed, the firefighters get equal pay, health services gives the department a fair dollar for paramedics, and when there is a plan to get all the closed stations reopened, I will be ready to step up and contribute. Until then, No on S.
Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to retire with a $100,000 pension? Wouldn’t it be twice as nice to retire with a $200,000 pension? How about triply nice to retire with a $300,000 pension?
The Contra Costa Taxpayers Association has just released its list of the retired county employees who enjoy pensions of $100,000 or more. Surprise, surprise – fire district retirees comprise 40 percent of the list.
Craig Bowen, former chief of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, tops the list with an annual pension of $304,286. More than half of the members in the $200,000-plus pension club are retired fire district employees.
180 of the retirees with pensions of $100,000 or more worked for the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District. As a result, ConFire now spends more on benefits than it does on salaries. Surprise again – ConFire is broke and will be seeking a tax hike in November.
The pay and benefits in ConFire and San Ramon is the compensation model that East Contra Costa Fire Protection District officials would like to move toward. Take a look at the $100,000-plus pension list – it represents a good chunk of the future of your tax dollars if Measure $ passes.
Here’s a link to the taxpayers’ press release: http://www.cocotax.org/100kPensionClub.
Here’s a link to the $100,000-plus Pension Club list: http://www.cocotax.org/Resources/Documents/2012-03-13 over 100k K Hunt.xlsx
Did you all know that your homeowners insurance rates are based on a rating system? They rate your insurance based on the distance of your house to a fire station, the response times and the overall rating given to the fire district. If stations are closed and firefighters laid off, you can gurantee your homeowners insurance rates will double, triple and in some case where the stations are closed quadruple!
Another fact to considered is in the areas where they are planning on closing fire stations like Bethel Island & Knightsen if the tax does NOT pass, most of the houses will be deemed uninsurable by insurance companies because the neareast fire station will be too far away and there are no fire hydrants in the area. When this happens if you have your home financed, your lender can actually call your note!
So many of you against the tax are being very selfish and uninformed! Going on and on about the bad economy, and the firefighters should suffer just like everyone else, but what you don't realize is it is actually going to be you the citizen who suffers, your family, your friends, and your community. Wait until that day you call 911 because you have a medical emergency or your house is on fire, and it takes them 12 mins or more to get to you. You will then wonder why paying $16/mo was such a big deal to you.
I have to ask the ones who think the firefighters retirement and benefits should be cut, "Would you run into a burning a building?" or "Would you put your life in danger to save a complete stranger?" Majority of the people will not.
Our firefighters are the lowest paid in the Bay Area and most of the state. The reason for an early retirement age compared to most jobs where people sit at a desk or in a office all day is because they are continously exposed to toxic materials and their jobs are physically demanding and take a toll on their bodies.
You ask "What about going back to volunteers?" East county is no longer the rural farm area it used to be, we have way too many people and incidents for volunteers to respond to or be trained properly to handle the situations the Fire District actually faces day to day. And for those of you who want to cut and go back to volunteers, are you willing to give your time to get out bed at all hours of the night for free and respond to an incident?
I am truly disappointed in those of you East County Residents who are against the fire tax, you have no sense of community or humanity! I hope all of you who vote NO, will never have anything bad happen to you where you need the fire department to save you, because by then it will be too late.
Yes,AMR does respond to medicals but usually when you call 911 for a medical emergency the fire department is the first responders and administer Basic Life Support until AMR is availiable to arrive. Also, if you vote yes on the tax it will not take your paramedic away, it will put a paramedic on every engine and providing a faster response to medical emergencies.
I agree that there are bigger issues that need to be addressed for the long term of the fire district, but not sure where you have been but it is not the board of supervisors who make decisions anymore for the fire district and it has been that way for sometime now. It was the board of supervisors who did not do there jobs many years ago to prevent this from happening when they knew the district would need more funds in the future to sustain itself.
The tax is not perfect, but then again what tax or new law is. If we do not do something now, we will all pay for it later. I am not threatening that something happen to anyone, I just hope that everyone realizes the importance of fire department and the firefighters before they ever have to call on them in an emergency and they aren't there to respond.
I have heard of various studies regarding EMS services.Here in Contra Costa County, we are working in a fire based EMS system. Our county has recognized the benefits of having first responder paramedics. In fact 5/22 they plan to recognize several of our crews who had "field saves" as you know this is a victim who is in arrest and is brought back to walk out of the ER with minimal diability. We have had several of them this last couple weeks. I was on one myself in San Pablo a few week ago.
I worked in a department prior to coming here that was in the process of implementing a paramedic program. I was a paramedic but was unable to function as one because we didn't have the approval to implement the program. I can remember a number of calls where I watched people suffer that could have used ALS intervention. The most memberable one was a young boy having a severe asthma attack. He went in to respiratory arrest while we waited for an ambulance. I could have given epinephrine or a breathing treatment if we were ALS. So to me it is a no brainer, study or no study.
There is no question that choosing one of the East Contra Costa Fire District stations as a polling location when such a hot/contested measure is on the ballot was very poor decision making. Could it take a little more work to reach a little further down the list of available polling place locations or worst case, perform another site visit? Sure, of course, but it's that decision making and work that these people are elected and paid to do. My polling place is fortunately not at 'scandalous' seeming location, but I can see why John (and others) that are going through this are upset. I would feel like those I entrusted, and pay to make wise decisions let me down.
John, if it were me, I would consider bringing a camcorder along and recording any inappropriate coercion should it occur.
Unfortunately, even without any type of expressed influence the fact that this measure will be voted on at a fire station with what I am guessing will be staffed with firefighters wearing their spiffy dress uniforms and nice shiny, polished fire trucks is a huge implied advertisement and coercion for a yes vote on this measure, which leads me back to saying that selecting this place is a poor decision on our decision makers.
Is it too late to change the polling place and provide a better alternative, choice and decision? I don't know, I've never worked in the county clerks office.
I’m shocked at your written answer. According to your employee " Melisa who `I was transferred to and the decision maker of polling locations " according to ,
The School was and is available ( walking distance and regular to polling for the past 100 years ).
Your employee Melisa was going to have Candy her supervisor call me back as to why the working Fire Station was being used over the School. Candy never returned the call.
Instead Melisa left this message; " You can write us a letter or contact your legislator ".
Your statement Mr. Weir if that is truly you on this blog,
"We lost our first choice location" WHAT ?? This is inaccurate and I'm insulted by it. Melisa stated that the School was available but she didn't know if it was handicap accessible. Of course, like Schools aren't prepared for handicap. Especially the one that you have used for 100 years (literally). The Fire Station has no toilet facilities for handicap and will be mixed with the public walking traffic in full operation with emergency vehicles. That is a poor choice over the School and is deemed as collusive with the measure at hand. While this may not be illegal it smells very bad. In addition, the mixture of fire personnel in forced direct contact to voters on this measure is fuel for illegal activity.
Mr. Weir, your office has made a very poor choice that may taint the outcome of this ballot measure.
To excuse yourself with stating you lost the first choice tells me either you or youe employee has been less than honest.
We used the multiuse room at the school, that was not available (FACT). The school offered another room, but we would have to send out a survey team for accessibility compliance (FACT). The fire station was available and had been surveyed (FACT).
Your efforts to draw my office into a political debate, for whatever reason, is offensive.
Mr. Gonzales: As I mentioned to you on the phone, I think you are full (of yourself).
We had used the multiuse room at the school in the past. It was available and accessible (under state and federal accessibility rules). We lost that site (FACT). The school offered another location, but we had not surveyed that space for accessibility (FACT). Our second choice, in our system, which was available and had been surveyed, was the fire house (FACT). We chose that site. We have over 500 polling places in the county. We identify several locations in each precinct and attempt to survey them all before an election. We do not pick one location or another for political reasons.
If I jumped thru every imaginary hoop you can think up, we'd never have an election.
Your attempt to bring my office into this political discussion is dishonest and offensive. Mayby that's your M.O.
I am offendend of the poor choice made by your office in a matter such as this. A little more effort on your part could avoid the look of inpropriety. You can attempt to insult me for your actions but the facts do remain. I hope there is no problems on election day due to your decission.
Mr. Weir is one of the most respected and competent people we have in county government in Contra Costa. I find your conspiracy theories and attacks on him completely unwarranted and unacceptable.
@LilGrom, are you implying the district spent money for signage related to this measure? That's the way your post reads. If you are in the biz, so to speak, shouldn't you know better? Such expenditures would be illegal and people would face charges. The signage is most likely paid for by union interests.
Ask rather than assuming.
To this ridiculous argument about venue. Do either of you gentlemen know that significant and growing numbers of ballots are cast by mail? Soon to be the majority of all ballots, in fact. Now most adults have the self control to shop at a grocery store and not feel pressured by all the advertisements of tasty foods and appealing products and feel compelled to buy them all. If you are intimidate by a fire engine, your issues are elevated well above what the choice of venue can fix for you. If you are that worried that you won't be able to control yourselves, invest in a postage stamp.
Problem solved.
We all favor QRVs, BLS, and transport.
We need a solution to this issue, and this new tax is not a solution. It is a "kick that can down the road" plan that brings more services into a bad situation with unfunded pensions.
The Contra Costa County Grand Jury and the Contra Costa County Taxpayers' Association oppose this new tax for this and other reasons.
The firefighters are awesome!
Our choice is based upon location, accessibility, and availability. Period
Speaking, from the "field perspective" do you work in it? If so, does the QRV system work as well in real life as it does on paper? Does a Fire engine beat the ambulance to the majority of the calls in East County? If you work out here and know these facts, I would like to hear your answer. We are not interested in getting into a fire vs AMR type battle on the internet. Been there, done that. If measure S passes, there will be 6 paramedic first responders instead of three. AMR will still be the transporting agency and respond their ambulances. Sometimes AMR arrives first and sometimes its the fire engine, most times the latter. Therefore it is better for the patient if both are ALS. If you work in the field you know that both situations occur.. There are many instances were our crews are on scene waiting for either an ambulance or QRV. Sometimes for a while. Why would anyone who knows this is the case be against having all first responders be paramedics? The funds that AMR currently provides for the QRV would most likely be shifted to the fire district for their paramedic program.( Close the mythical budget gap John and Kris rant about) That was what the original plan was for Measure H money.1.2 Million dollars is the cost for the three QRVs. I have talked to AMR operation leadership and they do not oppose Measure S. In fact they have donated to the campaign.Furthermore, most of the time if the QRV is dispatched it is responding with the engine it is housed with. Put that paramedic on the engine. A single paramedic on scene with a critical patient for more than 5 minutes with out other helpers, is not very effective, and if you are a medic, you know this! The QRV plan was a paper band aid put in place due to the inability for the fire district go to engine based paramedic programs like most of the other districts in the state have. Lets not make the QRV program seem like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.. no offense to any of the medics on the QRV's just keeping it factual. The only place they are in place is the under funded East county fire district and in Crocket which is covered by a volunteer program.
The staffing of fire stations with or without paramedics is still in jeopardy if Measure S fails, the emphesis on the paramedic component is a "smoke screen". The QRVs or a transporting AMR unit both need Fire fighters to assist with patient moving, CPR, equipment, extrication,hazard reductions, scene security, information gathering, and the list goes on. If you work in the field you are well aware of this. When you have a 300lb cardiac arrest, do you want us there? I would think that any AMR paramedic would support Measure S for the sake of the community they protect as well!
You may work in the field but you obviously do not follow and pay attention to evidenced based medicine studies regarding the most effective EMS systems in the country, and world.
If you did you would know that an increasing number of studies performed on an international level are showing that first responder paramedics are actually a bad thing for numerous reasons and that tiered response is actually better and has been shown to have better long term patient outcome, again for numerous reasons. While one may think that paramedics on every fire engine and every ambulance is what's best, it is actually not. In fact, our system here in the US , particularly that of fire based EMS has been shown to be an epic failure and disgrace compared to other nations.
It sure looks good on paper and to the public though to say that more paramedics will save more lives, but it's being proven to not be true.
That money will instead go for retirement expenses. Retirement expenses increased 26% this year and will increase another 30% in the next three years. At that point one out of every four tax dollars will be slated for retirement expenses. That percentage will continue upward, soon reaching 33% then 40%, 50% and more.
The reason retirement expenses are increasing so rapidly, consuming larger portions of the budget, is because district employees can retire at age 50 with an annual pension nearly equal to full salary. They will receive that for the rest of their lives -- on average another 31 years.
That totals to nearly $2 million per employee who retires early.
Employees who retire early do not come to your house to put out the fire. They are instead enjoying pensions of $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 and higher for doing absolutely nothing.
This fire tax hike will bring more than $100 million extra into the district. $25 million of it will not make one home safer. $550 of the $2,200 in extra taxes that each homeowner will pay will not provide any fire protection.
A recent Gallup poll revealed that most Americans are planning to put off retirement an extra year, retiring at 67, up from the 66 that they had planned to retire at in 2011. Back in 1995 most people planned to retire at 60.
The reason for postponing retirement? The majority of current workers (55 percent) don't expect to have enough money to live comfortably in retirement, up significantly from 42 percent in 2007 and just 32 percent in 2002.
So while taxpayers - most of whom don't have any pensions at all - are having to work longer to make ends meet, postponing retirement until 67, they are being asked to raise their taxes $2,200 so that district employees can continue to retire at 50 with $50,000-plus annual pensions.
The fire district is a microcosm of what is happening with the state and federal government employees who enjoy much better pay and benefits than the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill. Unfortunately, most people are tapped out, most of the blood has been squeezed out of these tax turnips.
It's time for the district employees to step up and take responsibility for fixing the district's deficit. Raise the retirement age, contribute more to pensions, reduce the amount of those pensions, replace the pensions with 401(k)s, rely on Medicare like the rest of us, etc.
But nothing will change if Measure $ passes. The defict spending will kick in again in four years, continuing every year thereafter until the district is once again nearly broke in 2022. Then the campaign will start up once more warning of Armageddon unless an even larger tax hike passes.
Meanwhile all of those 50-something district employees enjoying their nicely funded retirements will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Changes in the benefits and taking over paramedics already paid for should have been handled before the threats and scares of station closures.
If this tax does pass, you watch how the union will take a different stance. At least until they ask for another tax.
This article is obviously a stage. It even has a picture of a political candidate to add some juice to the sales pitch. A few doomsdays what ifs and some false promises may be all that’s needed to convince the non property owner voters. I would hope they are more intelligent and realize by voting for this measure they will eliminate the existing paramedics already paid for along with their vehicles. This transfers more miles, pressure, and costs to the fire district equipment and personnel unnecessarily.
Think about this scenario, the quick response paramedics and their vehicles are eliminated by this tax. Remember, today they are not part of the fire district. They are a separate entity. You pass the tax, then you have a medical call but your fire engine is tied up on a fire call. The next engine is also tied up because it’s a multiple alarm fire. You just gave the district more money to eliminate the quick response vehicle and it’s paramedic to enhance an existing firefighter to become a paramedic who is tied up on a fire. That’s a real dangerous medical situation to be in. Don’t pay more top short change yourself by removing medical vehicles and their paramedics in trade for a union perk.
I'm disappointed at the press for its staged influence to pass a tax that is wasteful and loaded with union perks. Sorry, I still can't buy it. The County needs to re-organize its fire services to equalize pay to its firefighters and service to it citizens. We all pay the same taxes. How they are dispersed is not our responsibility to supplement. We pay bid dollars to our county officials to handle spending the tax dollars effectively not to keep asking for more of our monthly budgets. Times are tough enough for everyone.
There is a better and more efficient way. It's just that it may not need the new tax or the union to do it. Send it back with a NO and make them do it right.
Closing of stations is not a scare tactic. It is a reality that will be forced upon the district by the reality of only $8M of revenue.
You keep droning on about this "paramedics already paid for" nonsense. You don't pay for paramedics. I left you a nice little detailed note on halfway with links. You might want to read those links to official reports so you can get your facts straight.
AMR did a nice little presentation at the mayors conference last week. In that they made clear they rely upon the fire departments to arrive, setup and prep patients for tansport. Before you go any further speculating on how it works in the real world, you should ask the people running the program. Those fact don't mesh too well with yours and Mr. Gavin's assumptions posted there. To be clear, yours are assumptions. Not facts.
You talk about "Doomsdays what ifs" and then give an outlandish example of having no paramedics around because every engine in the county is on the same fire. I suggest your google "Mutual Aid."
A more likely scenario (One that happens quite often) is one in which the Quick Response Vehicle is tied up on another medical, the ambulance is coming from Pittsburg or Antioch and the Basic Life Support Fire Department is on scene for ~15 minutes unable to render advanced care. This actually happens relatively often, so much so, that I can actually recall the day. Your example, however; has within the last 6 years, NEVER HAPPENED.
You laud the Quick Response Vehicle system as being amazing and yet, there are only 4 in the whole county. 3 out here and 1 in Crockett. Everywhere else in Contra Costa County uses Paramedics on their fire engines because it's faster and makes paramedics more readily available to the public. Please don't parade an inferior model around as cutting edge.
Speaking of paramedics on the fire engines, you ARE already paying for that. Measure H I believe? Only $10 of this parcel tax is for paramedics, which would drop your figure to $187/ year. The rest of the cost is covered by funds YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR. So they're not even double dipping as you imply.
I keep seeing "Times are tough for everyone" used as the old fall back and yet there is a 10 car line at every Starbucks in town in the morning. If you can pay $4 a day for a coffee but not $16.42 a month for someone who will get out on a freeway to pry you out of a car, you've got bigger problems than money.
I will gladly give these guys my $197 per year and you better believe I have no problem giving them another $394 for the other two properties I own in Oakley. The only shame is that I don't get 3 yes votes.
Not true, the entire city of Richmond and it's Richmond Fire Department does not have fire department paramedics. The ambulance company (AMR) staffs paramedics on every ambulance however. Also, the area of Crockett does not have fire department paramedics either and AMR staffs a quick response vehicle (QRV) paramedic out there 24/7 much like we have in three locations throughout east county.
"That contract runs out in 2015, Henderson said, and it’s not certain that the far East County service it provides will be continued."
Is Chief Henderson implying that in 2015 the county will just drop ambulance coverage? Come on, this is a ridiculous statement. Sure, no one can say for certain what company will be providing ambulance service in 2015 but the services and the ambulances, staffed by the exact same paramedics and EMT's staffing them now will remain (possibly just wearing different patches). Also, to assume the QRV's that exist out here now will go away if this tax fails is ridiculous. That is a requirement of the county ambulance provider contract. You really think the board of supervisors and others who influence their decisions will let that be taken out if measure S fails? No way. If anything, you may see a higher standard placed on the ambulance service, which could be a good thing as no matter how many fire engines you have, the ambulance and it's paramedic are still the ones who are going to transport you to the hospital, which in some of the most critical medical emergencies is one of the most important aspects of treatment, rapid transport.
The fire department does not provide ambulance service. They are completely separate and ambulances and their paramedics will not be decreasing or going away if measure S fails. This point seems to be purposefully glossed over by the fire department. The latest measure S mailer I received has such a play on the words throughout it that if someone didn't know any better they would think the fire department and ambulances went hand in hand, and if measure S fails they will think they are losing ambulances and ambulance paramedics as well.
I voted several times at the Discovery Bay station on non fire related issues yes you are right there Gavin, the rigs were all nice a clean hey infact guess what every rig I see is always nice an clean. Ummmm my mother has voted twice at the newer station on Balfour in Brentwood, and ya know I often see the guys in their nice pressed uniforms all over. Hey ya know last year my daughters school class went to the fire station and yep there they was big bright badges on and pressed uniforms.
I have yet to see a measure S sign within 1000 feet of a fire station or polling place I sould say and there wont be either cause it is illegal for them to be within 300 feet of the station so are you saying that our guys are bad guys and outlaws and will place them there the day of the vote? Really
Since I believe it is department policy WAY prior to this measure that firefighters shall wear the badge and uniform when dealing with the public with exception of calls and work type details the yeah you are right IF you see the firefighters at the stations in the pressed uniforms and bagdes they are conducting their daily business as they would on any other day.
If you feel the need to bring your recorders, camera phones and what not please then feel free. firefighters may not be rocket scientist however they are pretty sharp as well and if you think they will stand out and attempt to perform an illegal activity or risk their careers think again.
People that actually go and vote pretty much know well in advanc what they are going to vote yes and no on.
Get real and PLEASE, PLEASE tell me you have something better then this.