Firefighters in the East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District work an average of five 48-hour shifts per month, which works out to an average work week of 56 hours.
There are a total of 48 fire-suppression positions in the ECCFPD, 43 of which are currently staffed. The remaining five positions are back-filled by overtime, which Fire Chief Hugh Henderson said is less expensive than hiring additional employees with full benefit loads and other employee expenses. It also allows firefighters to work extra hours to supplement their base pay, one of the lowest rates in the Bay Area.
There are three classifications of firefighters in the ECCFPD: 12 entry-level firefighters; 15 fire engineers, who drive the engines and manage equipment; and 16 fire captains, who command the engine crews and manage individual station operations.
The command staff of the ECCFPD consists of three battalion chiefs, one per shift, who oversee district operations and provide overall incident command on calls, coordinating multiple engine companies and other agencies.
In overall command of the district is Henderson. In addition to running the district administration, the chief’s duties can include command of major incidents, managing media or even operating the district fire boat, as occurred last week.
Rounding out the district’s full-time staff is one administrative assistant, who manages the district office, including payroll and placing equipment and supply orders.
The district also employs about 20 reserve firefighters, who are paid $13 per hour and average 20 to 25 hours per month, mostly in training.
Basic wages
Firefighter pay and benefit packages vary widely across California and the nation due to varying population densities, terrain, local demographics, tax laws and collective bargaining agreements, to name some of the variables. The largest district in the county is the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ConFire) – which borders the ECCFPD to the west in Antioch – and serves 600,000 people in nine cities and unincorporated areas covering 304 square miles.
The accompanying chart are the basic rate, average overtime and total wages for the full-time fire positions in the ECCFPD, alongside the base rate (not including overtime) for the same positions in ConFire:
Retirement
Retirement benefits in the ECCFPD are managed by the Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association (CCCERA). The fixed-benefit pension system is a three-percent-at-age-50 (3@50) formula, which provides 3 percent of an employee’s average monthly salary over the previous 12 months worked for every year of employment. Overtime is not used when calculating the previous year’s salary for retirement purposes.
Therefore, an ECCFPD fire captain earning $5,000 per month and hired at the age 28 (the average age at which public safety employees earning 3@50 are hired, according to a study by CalPERS, the state’s largest public employee retirement organization) and retiring at 50 would receive a pension of $3,300 per month, or $39,600 per year. The benefit also provides a maximum 3-percent annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).
By working until age 58, the same captain could retire after 30 years of employment, earning as much as 90 percent of his final year’s salary. According to CalPERS, about 34 percent of all public safety employees, including police and prison guards, reach 30 years of service. One percent reach 30 years of service by age 50.
“The 3@50 (formula) is an industry standard now,” said Contra Costa County Supervisor District III Mary Piepho. “(ECCFPD firefighters) are underpaid as far as the Bay Area goes, but the 3@50 provides some level of competitiveness for the district to attract skilled and qualified personnel to serve the public.”
Depending on their age when starting, employees in the ECCFPD contribute between 13.7 percent (starting at age 21) and 20.20 percent (starting at age 49 or older) of their pension costs, the district paying the remaining 80 to 87 percent. As public employees, district employees do not pay Social Security taxes on wages, nor are they eligible for Social Security upon retirement.
District employees are eligible for retirement benefits after 10 years of service when retiring at 50, or at any age after 20 years of service.
Retirement benefits accrued but not yet paid for are known as unfunded liabilities. Due to retirement policies put in place during more affluent times plus losses in retirement fund investments caused by the recession, and because pension amounts are fixed, unfunded liabilities pose a major funding problem for nearly every public agency. As more employees retire, larger and larger percentages of the district budget will be consumed to pay off retirements. Approximately one-fourth of the ECCFPD’s budget now goes to pay unfunded liabilities, a total that could reach as much as 50 percent in coming years.
Pension reform for new hires could include reducing the percentage of salary used to calculate retirement, using three years instead of one to figure the salary used in the calculations. Raising the retirement age and/or reducing COLA increases could also be part of a revised pension formula, all of which will require years before it impacts the district’s bottom line, according to the county’s website.
The ECCFPD’s current contract with International Association of Firefighters Local 1230 was extended last month for a year. Negotiations are expected to re-open following the June vote. Local 1230 also represents ConFire employees, who last year took a 5-percent pay cut and dropped a future 5-percent raise. President Vice Wells, in announcing the ECCFPD extension, said pensions are a significant concern everywhere, and will be under discussion when talks resume.
Measure S does not include additional pay for firefighters other than a maximum 2-percent COLA.
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.
Click here to read Part III, where fire district leaders imagine what happens if Measure S fails.
I just got off the CCtimes website. Here is a comment from a candidate for the state senate.
Good job Mr. Meuser.
Mark Meuser · Candidate at Meuser for CA State Senate 2012
Well written article. I agree that we need to solve the problem before we come to the people and ask the taxpayers to pay more. People are having a hard enough time balancing their own budget. Instead of trying to tax everyone more, we need to find private sector jobs for our work force so that they can be productive tax paying members of society.
The unfunded pension liability is draining the tax money that the citizens are paying. I believe that there are 84 former employees of the Contra Costa Fire Protection District receiving pensions of greater than $100,000. This is just an indication of how our government has made promises to its employees that is now costing the present generation of employees. Rather than being able to spend our limited taxable income on current employees, a large portion of our taxable income is being spent on these former employees and their benefits. Government cannot afford to do funny math, we must be able to pay for pension benefits in the year that we receive the benefit of the employees work. It is time for pension reform and once you do that, then we can come back to the table and discuss whether tax increases is even necessary.
Especially the miss guided soles who think this new tax will fix anything. The Editorial by the CC Times explains very well why this tax is wrong for the citizens of CC County. Notice that it does not mention the firefighters because they are not the reason this measure is wrong. The Union, BOS, and the Commission have slapped this new tax together in haste. In the time it took the commission two years to slap this together they could have negotiated a true fix with the union and stopped the duplication of service to further power the union.
I compliment the CC Times Editor who can see the real picture. No on S.
God Bless all firefighters and emergency personnel shame on the BOS and this Union.
The Contra Costa Times has editorialized against Measure $, making many of the same arguments that I, the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association and other opponents have made. Here are some of the highlights:
“The proposed 10-year tax, starting at $197 per parcel and increasing to as much as $257 annually, demonstrates no fiscal discipline and fails to address out-of-control retirement costs.
“This tax would become the district's primary income source. In 10 years, residents would face enormous pressure to renew it. Thus, Measure S essentially would be a permanent increase.
“Rather than address the underlying fiscal crisis, the district proposes to irresponsibly add paramedic services and increase staffing. Adding paramedics would increase salary costs -- and exacerbate the district's retirement cost problem.
“The district's pension and retiree health care plans already are underfunded by $29 million -- a debt equal to nearly four years of current district property tax revenues.
“District officials know they will be spending far more on retirement benefits than on salaries. That's unsustainable and inexcusable. Yet, Measure S does not confront the problem.
“Before placing the ballot measure before voters, the district and firefighters should have negotiated substantial labor contract changes to reduce retirement costs for existing employees and trim benefits for new workers.
“Instead, they have simply postponed contract negotiations until after the election, hoping there will then be more tax money to play with. If voters approve Measure S, that will temporarily remove pressure to rein in these huge costs but won't solve the underlying crisis.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Here’s a link to the full editorial: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_20662932/contra-costa-times-editorial-east-county-fire-tax.
Wow, the CoCoTimes doesn't just arbitrarily oppose all new taxes. In fact, they support Hercules' Measures N and O, Alameda's Measure C, and other well reasonaned and fiscally prudent tax increases.
Clearly the Times is not supporting the new tax brought forward by ECCFPD and firefighter union sponsored Measure S because it does not solve the district's problems, and its passage would serve to excaerbate them.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_20662932/
So now the Contra Costa Times has joined with the Contra Costa Taxpayers' Association, Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury and multiple ex-fire East County fire commissioners in opposing this new tax that even its proponents admit does not resolve the funding issues for the district.
If this new tax fails (which I hope it does) the district and the union will need to work swiftly to come to terms with its unfunded liabilities so that it can put forth a reasonable tax measure in the Fall that doesn't kick the can down the road so we can all support it. Expanding service through new paramedics on each engine is a luxury that we clearly can not afford right now.
It is very unfortunate that the board and union took this approach from the start, and also that the board has not moved to become a legitimate independent special district in the eyes of LAFCO, but we will all need to move forward efficiently and constructively to best serve the community and the awesome firefighters!
NO on $$$$$$.....we need to get this right!
This explains allot about your comment. You say;
"I have to question the wisdom of the officials who gave you those seats"
Bob, it was Joe Canciamilla, Donna Gerber, Mary Piepho, and Federal Glover who appointed me. They also re-appointed me. I must have done something right.
Sadly, Joe C. (who was not influenced by special interest) began the fix. Unfortunately for the communities it is Mary Piepho who has been responsible the last eight years. The best she could do was ending the fire commission and ignoring solutions to the fire issue. Then dump her responsibility on people who were unaware of the special interest driven department.
The only entity that looked ahead was the City of Brentwood. They saw the problem and prepared themselves. The City of Brentwood has the titles to the fire station properties, the City has five benefit assessment districts that are allowed to be used for fire suppression, and they has invested in their own report. The only thing they haven't done is fall prey to the current self serving union. This is why the City of Brentwood no longer contributes the $600,000 that it once did for added firefighters. They too see that the current way this district is run is a train wreck of deficit spending. Even this new tax will not solve the 11 million in unfunded debt the district has made. The City of Brentwood is not going to put its hard earned tax dollars into this money pit without seeing the real reform that is needed first. I surely hope they do start their own Fire Department. They will be so glad they did.
Bob, it's evident you are a Piepho supporter and will do their bidding. That's fine but this tax is bad for everyone except the people who are responsible for the problem and the union who wants to take over paramedic service we already have and pay for. Other than that the entire measure is a waste of everyone’s money.
Even some of the firefighters who may get laid off will be picked up by Con Fire and actually get a raise in salary. Con Fire too is deficit spending and in debt to it ears with unfunded liabilities. They too are asking to be bailed out. Their time is coming for real reform if they continue on the same path.
The only solution is a new reorganized county fire because the Union will not secede to the true needs for a balanced budget. A new County Fire can be assembled to succeed rather than always chasing it’s tail for new money.
So Bob, instead of your personal attacks on people you do not know, get real and think for yourself not for the Piephos or the Union. Only then will you realize how you’re being used as a puppet in this political game for new tax money.
No on S, we need real reform, change, and accountability not more new taxes.
P.S. Bob, have some integrity and use your name when talk about and judge others.
The even more sad part Bob is that you’re Town of Discovery N
Bay will actually get less fire and medical coverage for several years if this tax passes. If it fails you will retain what you have.
NO ON S... send it back so the Firefighters can get equal pay and the citizens can get equal service.
Rick Lemyre
Also, how many years of service is required to receive 100% medical coverage in retirement?
I also do not understand the comment
"...a revised pension formula, all of which will require years before it impacts the district’s bottom line." If age of retirement was raised or a change in the formula introduced does this not reduce the amount of employer contribution?
I see they are looking at employing 15 new firefighters. Are you able to create a table which shows the cost to the District of comparisons say 2.7@50, 3@50, 3@55?
Please note that not all public service employees are exempt from social security as your article appears to imply.
Also, while Ms Piepho indicates 3@50 is the industry standard, as we are seeing with other public agencies, such as police, who are negotiating new contracts new tiers and changes to contracts is new public service standard.
@b_simp, why are you so angry with the public who are trying to make sense of this? Didn't the District pay an external community consultant $150,000 for an outreach campaign which your comments imply was not successful
@KnightRide: What I believe is everyone has the right to voice their opinion, ask questions and dialogue about this important topic. Snide comments about Milly, John and anyone else serve no purpose. I don't understand how all these people you list, many of the public servants, can support a Measure which will have the good people of East County back in the red after year 4.
On election day we will be asked to make a decision on what is best for our families, our community and our future. From what I can understand it is going to take more than $197 3% for the next 10 years for us to have sufficient fire and emergency services. This means I have to vote NO on Measure S. This has nothing to do with emotion or how much I appreciate our firefighters. It is about doing what is fiscally responsible and doing what is going to work for us long-term, even if that means I am going to have to pay more. Let's do it right and stop kicking the can down the road for another 10 or more years.
want what’s best for your family and you decided that was to have half the fire stations you have today? You say you want sufficient fire services, but choose the vote that will give you anything but?
The negative comments here seem to overlook the elephant in the room. The budget deficit facing the district is $3.7 million. All this jabber about issues like pensions, which won’t impact the bottom line for years, do nothing to fill that $3.7 million dollar hole. Neither do failed ideas like assessment on new construction, since no significant new projects have been approved in unincorporated East County in over 15 years.
District fire fighters have made wage concessions for a couple of years now. Even if they took more, you don’t put much of a dent in that figure. This a MAJOR structural problem in revenue that has to be fixed. You cannot fix it with just cost cutting and expect to maintain services. Anyone insisting you can is lying to you and perhaps to themselves. That or they simply have no clue about revenue flows and budgeting.
There are two former fire commissioners commenting here and I’m astounded by the lack of
understanding they put on display. I have to question the wisdom of the officials who gave you those seats. Paid on Call(POC) is just a fancy name for a volunteer department. It didn’t work when it was in place in the district ten years ago, because as the citygate study pointed out service levels were unacceptably low. There were many calls that didn’t have sufficient resources turn out for them and neighboring ConFire units had to respond to cover. I can only imagine with all the new population growth and traffic slowing factors what that would be like today. I grew up in a volunteer served small town. Back then it worked because people lived and worked in that same small town. For a bedroom community, as East County is today, it doesn’t make sense. Not to
mention the training requirements are incredibly more difficult and demanding. There are a few here that seem to really be hung up on the nostalgic with the volunteer idea while failing to look at practicality. In one case I would say it’s probably a former commissioner wanting to be the weekend warrior fire fighter himself and wear the FD t-shirt at the community chili cook-off. If that sounds petty, the descriptive is accurate. His motivation and personal agenda is that petty.
The other commissioner was soundly rejected in a recent election for a services district seat. You can see how the voters have already rejected his stale ideas for governance. We need less of that kind of let’s go backwards thinking, not more of it.
For this idea of a county wide solution. It took 8 years to hand off the district to local governance with 2 consenting groups. To involve DOZENS of agencies, all who have to agree or buy in, could be a decades long effort. If you want to start that discussion, fine. But it does nothing for the immediate crisis. For individuals to come in here and insist the Board of Supervisors could do it in 2 years is ridiculous.
Between East County and ConFire combined, there is an $18 million deficit for just next year. The
County just last week passed its budget for 12/13. Not surprisingly there is no left over money. The Board only oversees about $350 million in discretionary monies in any given year. The rest is mandated flows. It is beyond comprehension to think anyone could go over there and raid 5% of that money for a service they have no statutory obligation to provide you. EMS doesn’t have dollars to give either. This is the danger of people throwing around grand headline plans with no practical analysis or forethought
behind them.
It’s really too bad that at this late hour the fate of this measure is likely sealed. Partially through misinformation, misunderstanding and in a few cases outright deception. There are those who have used this issue as a political pawn in a long running grudge they hold against certain elected officials. A district of 105,000 has to suffer while they pursue vindictive retribution. Public safety is too important a service to be used as a political football. For those outsiders such as the Contra Costa Taxpayers group, shame on you. You are lobbying for corporate interests such as big oil and banking at our expense. That is who funds your organization. For Mr. MacVittie and Mr. Roberts to join you in the opposition statement is a fact that will not soon be forgotten.
I hope for the best come June 5 totals, but I fear the worst. If the measure fails and the consequences devolve to what all the professionals expect will happen, I hope that the public will then turn to asking more intelligent questions. We have to engage in better quality dialog and understanding than “just fix this” referencing some silly demand that the Board of Supervisors exercise authority and expenditures
they don’t have the power to exercise. The County doesn’t have any money and some of you seem to have forgotten that. You are not going to supplant the county’s EMS money because you’re a
cheapskate, Mr. B. Vague references to other agencies doing that leaves out the fact there was buy in from all in those solutions. You don’t have that here.
Too much energy has been wasted here listening to flawed logic and complete lack of common sense.
"As more employees retire, larger and larger percentages of the district budget will be consumed to pay off retirements. Approximately one-fourth of the ECCFPD’s budget now goes to pay unfunded liabilities, a total that could reach as much as 50 percent in coming years."
The ECCFPD is transforming into the East Contra Costa Firefighters Protection District.
The article fails to mention that Sup. Piepho is married to a firefighter and will enjoy the benefits of his 3@50 pension. Just because it's an "industry standard" does not make it fiscally prudent in a district losing $4 million per year.
$550 of the $2,200 fire tax hike will go for retirement expenses. When half of our tax dollars are paying for retirement benefits, the district should change its name to the East Contra Costa Retirement Protection District.
Nothing will change unless we vote no on Measure $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Statement from California State Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones on Measure S
“As California’s Insurance Commissioner, I am concerned that the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District is facing serious budget shortfalls that could significantly impact your homeowners insurance rates.
Measure S on the June 5th ballot will protect your current fire protection service. Most insurance companies use a Public Protection Classification program that evaluates key areas of fire protection including emergency communications, water supply and fire departments (adequacy of equipment, sufficient staffing, evaluation of training, existence of automatic aid, and geographic distribution of fire companies).
Without Measure S, fifty percent of firefighters will be laid off and three fire stations will be closed. That leaves only 8 firefighters daily to service the 105,000 residents and approximately 6,000 service calls each year.
And if emergency response times go up, it could affect your “Public Protection Class” ratings and increase your homeowners insurance rates.
Measure S will give the Fire District the funding it desperately needs to maintain critical fire protection. An annual parcel tax of $197 (just 50 cents a day) will ensure adequate fire and emergency response services, and stop your insurance premiums from skyrocketing. I urge you to vote Yes on Measure S.”
Measure S is supported by:
(list in formation)
Congressman John Garamendi
Congressman George Miller
State Senator Mark DeSaulnier
Assembly Member Susan Bonilla
Assembly Member Joan Buchanan
Assembly Member Nancy Skinner
Contra Costa County District Attorney Mark Peterson
Contra Costa County Supervisor Federal Glover
Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia
Contra Costa County Supervisor Karen Mitchoff
Contra Costa County Supervisor Mary Piepho
BART Director Joel Keller
Brentwood Mayor Robert Taylor
Brentwood City Council Member Steve Barr
Brentwood City Council Member Robert Brockman
Brentwood City Council Member Joel Bryant
Brentwood City Council Member Erik Stonebarger
Oakley Mayor Kevin Romick
Oakley Vice Mayor Carol Rios
Oakley City Council Member Pat Anderson
Oakley City Council Member Jim Frazier
Oakley City Council Member Randy Pope
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board Member Robert Kenny (Beth Island)
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board Member Cheryl Morgan (Morgan Territory)
Former East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board Member Chris Finetti (Discovery Bay)
Former Discovery Bay Community Services District Director and LAFCO Commissioner David Piepho
Contra Costa Central Labor Council
Contra Costa Democratic Party
United Firefighters of Contra Costa County, IAFF Local 1230
Tom Baldocchi, Jr, Knightsen
Michael Burkholder, Oakley
Joanne Byer, Brentwood
Gene Clare, Brentwood
Greg Feere, Chief Financial Officer, Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council
Heidi Mayer, Oakley
Nice list too bad many of those listed do not even live in the district and will not be paying.
More importantly, you being a firefighter is obvious where your bias lies. I do not want anyone to believe anything other than the facts.
The facts show that this new tax is wasteful and not really fixing the root problem.
Fact, paramedic service will not be affected if voted down. Current paramedic service and ambulance service are not part of the fire district. The new tax will cost us more and take away that paramedic service we already pay for.
Fact, the district will not be pulled out of serious debt with this new tax. In fact, half of the money will go to pensions not increased fire protection.
Fact, None of the closed stations will be reopened by this new tax.
Fact, The district owes to the pension $ 11,000,000.00 it does not have.
Fact, Alternative fixes suggested non union related were ignored.
Fact, No increased services other than a paramedic we already pay for will be realized for at least couple years.
Fact, This new tax does nothing to change the root problem of pension costs and overspending.
Fact, We all pay to the government the same taxes already.
Fact, Both Discovery Bay and Oakley will give up a medical emergency paramedic response vehicle and staff ( we already pay for) to promote a firefighter to paramedic status.
Fact, The fourth year of projected revenue has a 4.8 million dollar gap that no one knows or wants to explain how to account for.
Fact, your list of supporters is overwhelmingly made up of politicians and firefighters who live off of taxpayer money.
This tax is no good for the citizens and taxpayers. It needs to go back to the drawing board for a realistic fix and not a politically backed special interest Band-Aid.
God bless our firefighters, shame on the union and BOS. Send this poorly written measure back to them to re-organize county fire and equalize firefighter pay and service.
1) One percent of the employees will get hired at 20 and retire at 50; 34% of the employyees will be hired after the age of 20 years old but still work 30 years.
2). When the Fire Chief said this (Measure) won't fix the funding problem, I understand that to mean the "Proposition 13" fundamental funding issue, not Measure S. Meaning ten years from now without any amendments to Proposition 13, we will be addressing the same issue we are today when the tax Sunsets.
I must comment on Rick’s example of retirement. It appears misleading because it does not provide the actual picture of retirement at 30 years.
90% does not come out to $39,600. Also they are able to add in the perks to retire with such as vacation and sick pay. I'm not sure if they can ad in uniform allowance but some places do.
This would be like me citing the $ 330,000.00 annual retirement for the San Ramon Fire employee example in the CC Times front page a few days back.
What is great about this article is that it states:
"Approximately one-fourth of the ECCFPD’s budget now goes to pay unfunded liabilities, a total that could reach as much as 50 percent in coming years."
This is precisely (in addition to the duplication of services that would push the unfunded liabilities even further in debt) is why this new tax needs to be sent back with a No Vote.
Don’t talk about fixing it, Fix the $11,000,000.00 red ink hole the district has created over the past several years, before asking the public to weigh in with more tax money.
If we the taxpayers do not send this back forcing them to fix the overspending, they never will and they will keep coming back for more. No on S
I have always voted for and supported Mary in her election and re-election efforts.
If you don't read “they are underpaid as far as the Bay Area goes, but the 3@50 provides some level of competitiveness for the district to attract skilled and qualified personnel to serve the public.” as a defense of the 3@50 then I think you are just not willing to think with an open mind. Are you one of those people who believes anyone who opposes the tax is either stupid or evil?
And this isn't about screwing over the firefighters. They are awesome. It's about putting our leaders in a position to negotiate on our behalf and not on behalf of the unions that elect them. The community and the firefighters deserve better than this tax measure. Why would we want to expand the district by 30% when we don't have enough money to support the current system? And the tax doesn't resolve the funding issue according to the Fire Chief.
And while I think the firefighters are awesome, I think it is a mistake to frame the issue in terms of attracting enough qualified individuals to serve. That is the typical government line that is trotted out to explain benefit increases that are not economically justifiable.
To convince me otherwise you would need to demonstrate a shortage of qualified, awesome firefighters. When was the last time we had such a shortage?
And BFO, exactly what lies has anyone (CoCoTax and others) spread about 3@50?
This article actually creates confusion by saying:
"By working until age 58, the same captain could retire after 30 years of employment, earning as much as 90 percent of his final year’s salary. According to CalPERS, this occurs only 1 percent of the time. About 34 percent of all public safety employees, including police and prison guards, reach 30 years of service."
Is it 1% who reach 30years, or 34% who reach 30years?
This doesn't have to be the only solution. And since it isn't actually a solution at all, but merely a kick of the can down the road, we will be better off defeating this measure and sending the message to the board, union, and county that we expect them to actually fix this mess.
Unless you get an entirely different ballot than I do, there are a couple of things worth noting.
A) It's not a multiple choice/essay question. It's a yes or a no to the proposed assessment. There is no it should have been done this way or it should have been done that way option on your ballot. It's yes or no.
B) The Board of Supervisors do not govern this District. It's currently an apportioned and appointed body. You are not sending anything back to the BoS. There is no little suggestion or comment box in the ballot for why you might vote no. If you vote no, it's simply registered as such with the elections office. Your ballot does not go to the BoS. It goes to the elections office. If you want to write in some comments in some box you draw on your ballot, I guess you are entitled. No one will read them at the elections office as they are not running a suggestion box campaign. It's an election.
People may vote no for a host of reasons. They are entitled. But I don't recall any public event where you or Mr. Gonzales were elected spokesperson for the no contingent. So your opinions or intentions, while valid, serve no purpose in the grand scheme of things. They certainly do not reflect the consensus of the opposition as a whole.
Your options here are to vote yes to maintain services or to vote no and effectively say you are willing to live with the consequences of half of those services. Those are your only choices for the June 5 polling.
You can't seem to put much detail to your rhetoric of "fix this mess" but you sure seem to have unlimited criticism for those who are trying.
The semantics game with respect to trying to escape pension obligations isn't worth addressing.
It is a shame that the district and the Union have put forth this plan that so many people simply will not support. The plan does not address the long-term unfunded pension liabilities. Even the proponents of the tax admit this, and they want to have the next 10 years to figure out a solution. If that's what you believe makes the most sense, fine. I prefer to see an actual solution (something that solves the problem) put forth so I can support that. But I do understand your position and think it is reasonable. I just don't agree with it.
It would appear your expectations far exceed what the electoral process of our democracy was intended to deliver.
To extend upon my earlier comment, your no vote not only results in screwing over the fire fighters, but you inflict a wound upon yourself.
It's only a question of whether you're smart enough to see that in advance.
A no vote doesn't change the collective bargaining agreement. A no vote does not alter existing pension agreements which are protected by statute and the state's Constitution. A no vote, for the logic I've seen put on display by a handful of you here, is simply someone stomping their feet in a tantrum unable to understand that is not the proper way to resolve the situation.
First, any firefighters that get laid off will most likely be hired elsewhere pretty quick. I know for a fact that ConFire has held off on filling any open positions to prepare to possibly hire any individuals laid off from ECCFPD. Also the firefighters in California have a laid off list (displaced firefighter list) that other departments generally pick from first before hiring anyone else. All those San Jose firefighters that got laid off? Well they all got jobs, many of them with ConFire. Laid off firefighters likely won't be out of work very long, unlike many other millions of americans that have been out of work for years and still can't find a job.
You state they are underpaid, well that is an opinion. My opinion is that many others are way overpaid. I'm sorry but the salaries of some firefighters in surrounding areas is just unreal. People try and justify it with things seen and risks of the job. News for you, the job isn't actually all that risky (check out bureau of labor statistics) and the emotional aspect...well there are many others out there, not just nation wide, but globally that see the same thing or worse and don't demand this type of compensation. How about your local ambulance crews who deal with everything just the same, and sometimes worse (alone in the back of the ambulance with all sorts of patients, ones that become critical or ones that are hostile) and yet make half what the average firefighter in ConFire makes and will get by with a 401k or whatever private sector retirement. I myself have seen many "horrid" things in my past experiences and I never once thought I deserve any special treatment or compensation for it. It's your job and what you signed up to do, it is no secret when you get a job in EMS (or much of medicine in general) that you are going to see sick, ill, injured people. If it's not for you do something else, there are plenty of other careers.
They miss holidays? So do a ton of people. Many out there gone for months at a time and only back for weeks before they are gone months again. Again this is a part of a job that is a 24/7 business. Oil rig workers, doctors, nurses, hospital janitors and cafeteria employees, utility workers, priests and clergy, police officers, airline pilots and other transportation personnel, prison and jail staff including guards and their support staff..the list can go on and on. You go into the field knowing it is part of the job. Over time you go from being a newbie to getting some seniority and you know what? You'll end up getting those days off, before that happens you'll be compensated for the trouble of working a holiday.
Nice job Rick and providing real information.
You're position on the tax is clear; you favor it and your 'reporting' serves your position.
Have you considered bankruptcy as a method of protecting the upside down district from the disastrous unfunded pension liability?
The County BOS put this district in the position where it is. Mary Piepho defends the pension situation by pointing to what she believes are deficient wages that justifies the pensions. Problem is, wages can (must) be bargained with current money. Our leaders (CCC-BOS) were cowards and bargained pensions with our children's money because they couldn't find the resources to pay appropriate wages or make the necessary structural changes. That's just wrong and this tax would feed into that mentality.
It's time to get to actually solve the problem rather than just kick it down the road. If bankruptcy is not being considered then the CCC-BOS and the current fire district board are not doing their job.
Governor Brown, by the way, has an even larger plan on the way for ALL Californians so consider that cost when voting for Measure S.
Check with the officials in Stockton who are weighing the bankruptcy option. CALPERS has stepped in to negotiate with them, but releasing them from the obligaton entirely simply isn't an option.
It is insulting and irrational that one would think you could screw over the fire fighters and then expect them to continue working for you with full likelihood that you would try that again at some future date.
Supervisor Piepho stated 3 facts in her quote. I see nothing in that statement that defended anything. It would appear you have a chip on your shoulder for her.
The only real option available to the district is as the article noted, a second tier pension plan for all new hires. That is the case with all districts and agencies in the state facing this same dilemma. Let us not forget the economic downturn has hit all of them and the problem is not unique to ECCFPD.