Measure S contains no plan at all to solve the long-standing financial problems of the CCC fire departments. Because there is no comprehensive solution, the responsible thing to do is to vote NO and push our elected officials for a real solution that does more than just consume massive tax dollars, an example of which is outlined below.
With this tax, a community the size of DB will be paying in at least an additional $10,000,000 and that does not buy any service level commitment. As many have pointed out, this new tax will eventually cause the separate AMR paramedic with a quick-response vehicle stationed in DB to be removed … this will be a huge loss.
What if the paramedic-fire engine is on a fire call and this AMR vehicle did not exist? DB is a large population center and is a long way from the next station or ambulance base. This AMR quick-response vehicle needs to stay and is much better for DB than having the third person on the fire engine being the only paramedic in the area. And remember: AMR paramedics do not consume any tax dollars … fire department paramedics do!
Outlined below is a 14-segment proposal to fix the CCC fire/EMS financial situation. This plan, although not perfect, does provide financial sustainability and firefighter job security. It will not be easy or overnight to implement and some will hate it, but it is an all-encompassing plan, and nothing of this magnitude has been brought forward by the tax proponents or the fireboards.
Key point … this plan does not call for fire department employees to do anything unique and dangerous, or participate in a compensation plan that is less than standard in city/metro paid/full-time fire stations across the country.
1) Create a brand new (not a merged) CCC county fire/EMS entity that will be the foundation for the savings necessary for financial sustainability and job stability going forward. This foundation will include at a minimum:
2) Implement a tiered comp plan that does not exceed the national average even at the highest tier (former ConFire people would be taking a definite cut; former ECCFPD people not so much).
3) Meaningful pension and benefit reform. This is essential and will have major impact further into the future.
4) Inclusion of POC/two-hat/reserve or other less than full-time programs for strategic use and to supplement two-person crews on a regular basis as the primary source of the second (or third) crew member in select regular station staffing scenarios. A target should be set that at any given time a certain percent of the staff on duty at stations (say 20 percent) would be something other than full time.
5) Leveraging of management and administration, including a reduction from current levels that exist in the separate FDs.
6) All county EMS oversight under one roof and under the administration of the fire chief. Join or start a regional EMS consortium (five already exist in California).
7) The BOS must give up multiple offices and 50 percent of its overhead (it can make it up with office holder accounts), with the savings going directly to EMS.
8) Use of the most cost-effective shift structure like Cal Fire uses. The union will fight this but it works for the largest fire department in the state.
9) Variable deployment/crew size strategies … the population centers get more, rural gets less.
10) Maximization of vendor support (such as Cal Fire and AMR) and vendor deployment. Maximize use of AMR to provide paramedic services in most locations.
11) Strategic station brown-outs (by time, by day, by season).
12) The potential exists for specific communities such as Brentwood that have other revenue streams for public safety to supplement their basic coverage.
13) Absolute commitment to implement P-zone/district like supplemental fire/ems revenue programs for new development in all areas served by the new county fire/EMS entity (Pantages is a perfect example).
14) After the details are worked out and implementation has commenced, then and only then, if more revenue is needed, the voters will consider a new tax that would certainly be smaller than Measure S. To succeed, any new tax must have some form of roll back should other revenue sources increase. The tax now before the voters will fail; a tax as proposed herein, that is the last part of an overall plan, will likely succeed.
Vote No on the “No plan” Measure S and press those in control for a real solution, such as the above 14-segment proposal.
Jeff Barber, Discovery Bay
1. New District – good luck
2. Tiered Comp Plan – is already coming
3. Define meaningful and who gets to decide
4. 2 person crew should be dead on arrival.
5. ECCFPD does not have a management/Admin problem to begin with
6. No
7. Are you kidding me? What does BOS staff have to do with fire services? You are comparing apples to oranges. They have multiple offices due to the size of the County. Why should Discovery Bay residents drive all the way to Martinez to say hello to Mary Piepho?
8. CALFIRE structure works for rural areas, not cities!
9. Sounds good in theory but you need to protect entire district equally, need to be strategically placed for ALL situations.
10. Do you realize if this occurs, AMR will come back requesting more money due to new contract terms? CALFiRE is not obligated to service ECCFPD.
11. This is silly, how do you strategically predict emergencies by time and by day or by season?
12. Prove Brentwood has funds specific for fire services? Show me in the budget.
13. From what I understand, these fees are for building of a fire station or purchasing equipment (large items) not to servicing residents. Similar to what occurred with Summer Lakes where they promised to build a fire station after a certain target was hit.
14. If this plan was logical as you state, there would be no need for another Measure to fund the fire service.
You call my 14 point list a "10 year plan". Once again you provide a showcase example of how a piepho/BOS cheerleader thinks in relation to letting the politicos off the hook for not doing their jobs. This is only a 10 year plan in the minds of non-doers and those who desire to preserve the dysfunctional status quo for the benefit of special interests.
My plan (or one like it) certainly would be implemented in phases and not every element is necessary for success....but to simply dismiss it all and falsely call it a "10 year plan", while offering NO alternative is absolute the pandering of a person who does not want to see the fundamental problems solved.
To be clear, the fundamental problem is that ECCFPD should not exist...there should be ONE new county Fire/EMS entity that pays less than the 20% above the national average that Con Fire now pays. The new FD should be leveraged with many new programs and methods to lover overhead, all of which are used in other places but clearly are objectionable to this union. I am convinced that burke et al. and this union do not really want to solve the problems in any other way than maxing out the tax take from the public. Many other places face FD financial problems and it seems to me, outside of this county, the solutions I see and read about are more creative and it seems more like the all sides are working together. Not so in CCC.
Vote NO on S then tell the politicos you want a real solution(s). If this tax passes and an additional $10,000,000.00 is taken from a place like DB, with no real solution, we will indeed have a burke inspired '10 year plan' and that plan will entail nothing but MORE tax increases to pay for the dysfunction that we all know exists.
You are not a very optimistic person with the answers I see you write. I think any idea that helps me keep my grocery and house payment money I'm for. The politicians always ask for more money each time they mess up. The Great Depression taught me and my parents how to manage our money wisely. We were taught to only spend what we have in our hand. Nowadays the government just keeps spending and giving to itself money it does not have. Then it asks people like me on fixed incomes to give them our money. This generation needs to take this recession seriously or the real great recession will follow. Mark my words if that happens you have not seen anything yet. I'm voting no to show the government they need to budget their money just like I have to.
So Mr.Oakley you need to open your mind and welcome any new ideas that save money. Mr. Barber I enjoyed your letter and think the fire people should consider the ideas. Im still no on s.
For the record, Jeff has been touting this so called plan many times and he knows its a long-term plan. His plan is DOA with a kicker of if there needs to be more revenue then issue another ballot Measure for more money down the road--might as well support Measure S then.
The silly thing is while you accuse me of not being very "optimistic" or "open minded", then I accuse you of not living in reality.
With out emergency services that could save your life, you may not be able to make it to get your groceries or pay your bills because you might just be 6 feet under with 15-minute response times.
Just because someone offers a new idea, it doesn't make it a good one.