After reading Mike Dawson’s comments on Measure S last week, I felt compelled to correct several incorrect assumptions contained in his letter.
His first comment included government “living within its means.” It is important for us all to be aware that ECCFPD has not had the means/revenue to effectively provide the service most citizens expect. As previously explained, because of Prop 13 limits, we have been paying for a rural level of service when the reality is the community has grown to require a suburban level of service. The cities and communities have grown without any adjustments to the apportionment of funding. In this case our fire district’s “means” has been below the industry standard and below the rest of the county, in revenue, pay and services. Thirty years of underfunding the fire district has finally caught up with us.
Next were comments of pension reform and “crying wolf.” While many municipalities are working on pension reform, the issues are extremely complex. There are many laws and statutes that define what can and cannot be “reformed” and it takes decades for any savings to be realized. Furthermore, our firefighters are already paid far below that of their county and Bay Area counterparts. They are a distant last when it comes to staffing levels and compensation – there is no more room to be cut. There is no “crying wolf.”
It’s very clear that if Measure S fails, half of our remaining fire stations will be closed almost immediately, leaving us with only three stations to protect the communities that have relied on as many as eight fire stations in the past. This is neither a scare tactic nor a matter of “crying wolf.” It is the reality facing each and every one of us.
Lastly was a comment regarding Brentwood possibly separating itself from the district and forming its own fire department. While even though the unincorporated communities pay a higher 9 percent compared to Brentwood’s 7 percent, the scenario of detachment is highly unlikely due to many factors and Government Code 56668, which LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission), the regulating agency, must consider.
Moreover, even if Brentwood was able to detach, its citizens still travel, visit family and friends, own businesses, shop and work outside of its boundaries and are likely to need emergency services when away from home or traveling Vasco, Marsh Creek and Highway 4.
I agree that it is important to look closely at the consequences this proposal brings, as well as any new taxes. Although I feel taxed out, the ramifications of Measure S are beyond any scare tactic, and the consequences would be felt immediately. If the measure fails, your insurance is subject to increase and cancellation, firefighters will be laid off, fire stations will close and vital emergency response times will increase. This puts lives and property at risk. In this scenario, we all lose.
As a resident, former LAFCO commissioner and taxpayer, I urge you to get the facts, and vote Yes on Measure S.
David Piepho
Discovery Bay
And please the very tired retort that all the BOS could do is hand off the ECCFPD to a separate board is just as silly today as it was two years ago. That action was nothing more than tossing the hot potato and then ducking for cover.
The most plausible (comprehensive) solution for solving the fire department financial problems in this county is to dissolve in some way Con Fire, ECCFBD and county EMS (and maybe others). A multi-step recommendation was made long ago that centered on creating a brand NEW county fire department that incorporates the county EMS function. This new & leveraged fire/EMS entity would use various deployment strategies and outside resources (such as AMR) to accomplish their mission at a more sustainable cost structure. Absolutely for sure the unions would have to make concessions, there would be some jobs lost and coverage would vary by area (as it does in any large/diverse county).
I have seen it reported that that Con Fire is already paid in the range of 20% above the national average and ECCFPD is already paid at the national average. Keep in mind the national average wage calculations include all the really high cost of living metro areas. Places like Antioch and Oakley certainly do not fall into the high cost category.
The favorite union talking point that says…..'poor ECCFPD is the lowest paid in the bay area', is a ridiculous argument/reason to vote for this new tax when you consider they already are paid in the range of the national average (and they get, I believe, a richer than average pension). A more relevant point to consider is that all the other fire departments in this county are likely over paid (and wallowing in debt). The over paid bay area fire departments that can not carry their own financial burden should in no way be used as any sort of bench mark to justify more taxation.
There are many things the county BOS could have done over several years to keep the two county fire departments from facing this insolvency. But they chose not to act. I am absolutely convinced that unless PROP S FAILS they (the BOS) will not act to develop a real and lasting solution that will add needed stability to fire department jobs and ultimately save lives/property.
Sure dp wants to deflect scrutiny from his wife's failure to act and he wants to continue to propagate the union myth that the ECCFPD is under paid……his self interested motivation is not at all hard to figure out. I too am self interested, I seek a functional county fire/EMS entity that is stable and sustainable at a reasonable consumption of taxes. My self interest (and I believe the matching self interest of the majority of the 1,000,000 or so folks who live and work in this county) will not be realized unless we vote NO for MEASURE S and unless we pressure the politicians to finally do the right thing to solve the county's fire department problems once and for all. Measure S only makes the situation worse.
They were wrong.
You will be wrong.
And at the end of the day you will have no one but yourself to blame for making the choice.
It is unclear to me why you think you and a couple of bullies on the internet are going to force the Board of Supervisors to do anything. Or how one of five of them was going to wave a magic wand and "fix" this. But it has been my experience in the brief time of reading your commentary that you are not really about solutions. You are about misplaced blame.
The debate that took place between opposition leader Kris Hunt and Vince Wells will be available online soon according to moderator Lisa V. You should watch it.
Especially the part where Kris Hunt admits that ECCFPD is underpaid.
It comes when Lisa questions her about a move to fire department supplied paramedics. There are some other jewels in there too. Much like her confusing letter today where she says $197 isn't enough to fix this problem. But $96 is. Your national average comparison doesn't mean much when we are talking about the expensive Bay Area. And we don't need to hear your Truckee comparison either because you'll again selectively cite statistics, while leaving out important ones like the fact that household income in Truckee is $67,000 while in Brentwood it's $87,000. But maybe the US government fabricated those just to make you look bad? Mr. B, I've never seen you at a meeting, though I don't pretend to have gone to all of them myself. Do you simply shout from the shadows? Do you honestly expect politicians to monitor mud throwing message boards to listen to crazy and illegal ideas such as yours? Do you actually expect them to come here to respond? Wouldn't they have more important things to do?
I'm genuinely curious.
Please explain in your opinion what the Supervisors should have done besides calling for this vote sooner. I mean besides the illegal use of funds to supplement this fire district at the expense of some other mandated core service.
Mr. Stoney is correct. All your blustering will mean nothing in July when 911 calls will go answered. Dispatchers can't send fire engines that are no longer in service from stations that are no longer staffed.
Just ask Pinole.
I have attended several of the fire board meetings held in oakley, mostly in the first year the board existed. I stood and made several comments. I also attended one meeting held in a local school gym.
We can agree that a few folks on the internet will not cause the BOS to do what they should have already done. That is why I say vote NO and send the message that a real fix needs to happen.
Every time I comment this subject I always make sure to include my suggested fix, please re-read what I have posted. The corner stone to my suggested 'real' fix is to completely scrap both Con Fire and ECCFPD (heck maybe include Hercules/Rodeo/Pinole). Shut them down. At the same time create a brand new larger/leveraged FD that would also include the county administration of EMS. This new FD could only have a comp structure that could be paid for. This will not be an easy process and it will not happen overnight and there will be short term costs. But the long term benefits will be overwhelming. This process could already be well underway if tunnel vision and special interest pandering was not rampant.
Other things like fire/ems P-districts/zones (for housing tracts going into former rural areas) could have been constructed, but were never even discussed by the BOS and I know this for a fact. The BOS could have long ago stood up to the union on their quest to exterminate all but full time union positions. The vast majority of any FD's call volume/work load is EMS, from what I understand the county has budgetary latitude in this area but they don't use it. Please explain why the BOS has done none of these things?
Thank you very much for making my point and mentioning an area in CA that has a cost of living ratio way above most or all of CCC (the 9th highest in the country, per a recent WSJ article that quoted a government report) but has a FD comp structure more than 10% below that of ECCFPD.
You are welcome for the Truckee reference. But I was not referring to some article from the barons on Wall St. I was referring to the local article from moonshineink that contains all the comments from the native Truckee residents. The ones who are pretty unhappy with transient residents like you who they feel have spoiled there once idyllic community. The ones who struggle with 2 and 3 jobs and still don't know if they will make it or will have to leave after generations of family have lived there. You said you have moved around a lot and it seems everywhere you go the community goes to heck in a hand basket. Is stating you live in a community where 94% of one of the high schools is illegible for a lunch program due to the poverty really something you want to brag about? Why do you think there is essentially a two class society with rampant poverty now in Truckee and is that the vision you are trying to force upon us here with your plan?
http://moonshineink.com/sections/spot/priced-out
But back to the fire department problem. You have never really answered why you think the Supervisors would have the authority to run roughshod over stand alone fire districts and force your plan upon them. My understanding of the law and through conversations with actual county officials says it can't be done in that manner. Who or where did you get your information to conclude that it could? A plan that is illegal cannot be taken seriously and that appears to be the spot you are in.
I also notice that you and Mr. Gonzales seem to repeatedly claim that if our Supervisor had only imposed benefit assessments on new homes that we wouldn't be in this mess. So I asked the Supervisor about it. Turns out the number of homes in unincorporated East County where she would even have a say is zero. That's right. Not a single one approved under her tenure. So exactly who is it you have issue with again? How far back are you saying these benefit assessments should have been proposed? Would it possibly go back to a time when your home was built? Or will all considered scenarios exclude you and Mr. Gonzales and only others are expected to pick up that tab?
Thank you again for your feedback.
Anyone who doesn't see what a disaster it would be if Measure S fails is in for a very sad reality. Please vote yes on Measure S.