The ECCFPD board listens to one of about 200 residents who turned out for the board’s Tuesday meeting. The board voted to close two of the district’s eight stations due to budget shortfalls.
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Photo by Richard Wisdom
After hearing pleas from dozens of residents to keep the stations open, the ECCFPD board voted 6-2 to adopt a six-station operational model and close the two stations with the lowest call volume. The district is operating on a $3 million annual deficit, dipping into its $5 million in reserves to pay its bills. Projections show that the reserves will run out before the end of 2012. The closures will save the district $1.4 million per year, Acting Chief Hugh Henderson said Wednesday.
“As difficult as it is, we need to do something now,” said Director Pat Anderson of Oakley. “This model gives the most but still lets us cut back.”
Anderson was joined in voting for the closures by fellow Oakley representatives Jim Frazier and Kevin Romick, as well as Brentwood representatives Chris Becnel, Bob Brockman and EECFPD board President Erick Stonebarger. Director Chris Finetti of Discovery Bay and Robert Kenny of Bethel Island voted no, and Brentwood’s Bob Taylor was absent.
As a result of the closures, which are to take effect July 16, response times could rise significantly. In the area now covered by the Byron station (Station 57), it’s estimated that the current 7.5-minute response could increase to 12 to 14 minutes. In Discovery Bay (Station 58) the times could go from an average of 6.5 minutes to between 9 and 11 minutes.
Prior to the vote, Finetti said the closures would “seriously undermine support” for the new tax that will be needed to save the district, despite the closures. The three-person staffing at some stations could lead to complacency, he warned. “People (in Brentwood and Oakley) need to feel their fire department is truly at risk, just like the people in the outlying areas,” he said. “It’s imperative that all residents of the district feel the pain.”
Finetti favored keeping all eight district stations open, staffed by two firefighters each, as opposed to the six-station model that allows four stations – 52 and 54 in Brentwood, 93 in Oakley and 59 in Discovery Bay – to maintain three-person crews. His motion to that effect failed on a vote of 2-6, Kenny providing the other yes.
Earlier talks also put Bethel Island’s Station 95 on the list of possible closures. As they had at the previous ECCFPD meeting, Islanders turned out in force to lobby for their station. About two-thirds of the 200 people in attendance Tuesday raised their hands when a speaker asked how many were from Bethel Island.
The steady procession of speakers included numerous residents of Discovery Bay, Byron and Knightsen, as well as a few from Brentwood and Oakley. Many pointed out that the move would neither balance the budget nor stave off bankruptcy for more than a few months, while others said revenue enhancements should be sought before stations are closed.
Speakers provided plenty of advice to the board. They suggested that California’s Environmental Quality Act should be consulted prior to closures, that reserve firefighters be used to keep stations open and that the closures be put off at least until after Labor Day to offer better coverage of the inevitable boating accidents near Discovery Bay and Bethel Island.
Some speakers threatened action against the district were Station 95 to be closed. John Gonzales of Knightsen said Brentwood’s fees on new construction could legally be used for fire service, and that the city should “release those funds to the district.”
In response, Brockman said the various factors had been examined several times in the six years since the district was formed out of three smaller districts. Station closures had been discussed on and off for years, he said, blaming the previous fire board – the County Board of Supervisors – for not making hard decisions earlier. The current ECCFPD board took over in February.
“We are looking to do the best we can for the entire district and keep it solvent as long as we can,” he said. “We’re doing what we said should have been done years ago.”
Becnel objected to the implication that Brentwood was withholding money. He said studies had shown that city taxpayers already pay 48 percent of the district’s costs, enough to pay for three stations staffed by three-person crews instead of the two stations and five firefighters there now. The remainder helps subsidize operations in each of the district’s other communities. “I’m OK with that,” Becnel said. “But I very much object to someone saying that Brentwood is withholding money from the fire district.”
Brentwood’s fees can, but are not required to, be used on fire service, as well as police, community facilities, open space, flood control and other uses. Historically, the city has used it to fund police operations. Last year’s $2.8 million total money also helped to build a new Senior Center ($17,000) and expanded library ($150,000).
While all agreed that station closures are difficult to swallow, there are some upsides to the new staffing plan. Operating four stations staffed with three firefighters means improved firefighter safety, and fewer calls will require a two-engine response to get enough people on scene. Henderson said Wednesday that as many as 25 to 30 percent of the district’s calls that currently require a two-engine response will now be able to handled by one.
Henderson also said he was working with American Medical Response, which provides paramedics through its quick response vehicle (QRV) program, to possible rework the deployment of QRVs to offer more coverage to areas affected by station closures.
Also on Tuesday, the board directed staff to return with data on possible revenue enhancements, including special taxes, property assessments and billing out-of-area residents who use the district’s services while in the area. A 2006 study by Citigate Associates, reviewing the district’s operation and laying out possible funding options, will be updated for the board’s August meeting, at which time a strategy and action plan will be developed.
Update: July 8 Correction
A story in last week’s Press reported that the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District would save $1.4 million per year by closing two of its stations. The savings actually came from approval of the entire budget package, of which the station closures were one part. The package also included the elimination of six firefighter positions previously budgeted but currently vacant, and the cancellation of a contract with Cal Fire to keep the rural Sunshine Station (Marsh Creek/Morgan Territory area) open year-round. The district will save $70,000 in station overhead by closing the two far East County locations.
Bob,
Rick gives you a compliment and your off....
Your constant bumbling personal attacks are not solving anything. As yet you continue to dialog response times, crew size, equipment as if you are the Chief of the District. Logistics should remain with the professionals and that is not you.
I'm still waiting for your sniper savvy thinking to fix this problem and all I read is your personal degrading comments and attacks with your philosophy of logistics in fire suppression.
We have not passed the BOS responsibility because the ECCFPD district may still not truly be independent until a few other legal LAFCO hurdles have been completed. I would also question if it could even go into BK because the ultimate responsibility in my opinion remains at the BOS until a completed LAFCO notice to the landowners and vote tallied to form this new ECCFPD. Then finally a vote consummated by LAFCO.
As far as suggestions for success, I have made quite a few. I admit some ideas have ruffled feathers. I am not concerned with that as much as the immediate safety of my children and my neighbors (unfortunately including you). It is up to the commission to decide if those suggestions are to be explored or not. This is why they have taken on this difficult task.
As far as no legal requirement to form a Fire Service, maybe back in the early days before you were born. However, since they have been assuming this role and providing fire protection, I would think a judge would hold (BOS) them responsible for disbanding the district and leave con fire in operation.
As far as mandated is concerned. I would place fire service any day over a 60% raise (not mandated) $ 250,000. Worth of Office Furniture (not mandated) $60 K for Viagra, Cell phones, Public vehicles used privately, stipends, etc. No sense in going on Mr. Brown.
The blame has been issued and it's not the locals fault, its not rocket science either. I do not believe anyone wants to bust the union as you say. It would just start back up again anyway. There are some ideas the union can work to their benefit, the firefighters, and the public. I'm sure they will figure those out.
I think many agree a new revenue source must be implemented. But (make a new tax) is that all you got ? There are several ways for new revenue. Some should begin now and some should begin as soon as available. However, if this commission does not have a "Fail safe" plan in place should a new tax not pass; we will be all dancing the same dance that we have for the past 15 years.
Only this time it will be with half of the firefighters we have today.
There is available money now. It is a matter of priority and preference that dictate its uses. Obviously, supplementing fire suppression for East County is not one because the BOS and a couple commissioners have not committed as one for all and all for one yet. I hope the others will pressure them to.
Bob, you’re quite naive when it comes to public dollars. The politicians must love you. You are easy prey. Stick to your response times, Distances, GPM of Water, tire tread thickness, fuel costs, and paint schemes. I'm sure the BC's would love to hear your improvements to their department.
I have never met Flint nor Barber, but if you lump me in with them, they must know what they are talking about.
Mr. Barber, you need to get off the scratched record response and put your brain into gear.
I stated it to you previously and repeatedly, the District has no long term debt. What in the world do you think you are going to restructure with a bankruptcy or equivalent action? The only significant liability is in the form of a wage/benefits contract with the union, which is why I call it a union busting effort on your part. You have below scale paid professionals that you seem intent on pile driving into the ground with even lower pay. That should make you lots of friends within the department.
This is just another instance where you have adopted tunnel vision on a local issue and refuse to look at the facts.
You, Flint and Gonzales keep going back to the well on how the Board of Supervisors should have fixed this, but when pointedly asked how, you do a cowardly disappearing act. After the district’s formation/consolidation the BoS became the governing board by default, not by design. They do not have any legal requirement to form or operate a fire department and certainly have no legal obligation to fund one. There are tens of thousands of hands out in Martinez expecting money from BoS for MANDATED programs, but here you are pitching the ridiculous idea they should be directing general fund dollars to a program that is not mandated?
The Board of Supervisors is a pass through agency for property tax dollars coming back down from the state to fund this fire district. They do not control the amounts sent down, they simply hand over the money. Write it down on a card and put it on your mirror so you can see it every morning, Jeff.
Negotiations to hand off to local control have been going on for 6 years that I know of and the locals involved with that effort have equal, if not greater blame to shoulder for it not happening sooner. Brentwood explored the idea of going it alone and aligning with ConFire, Oakley wasted time trying to also go with an alternate alignment, then wasted more time trying to hardball the county on a land issue. All of that contributed to a delayed handoff. That’s all the BoS’ fault only in the selective fact cognoscente world that you live in.
Would you have been fine with the BoS pre-empting the pending power transfer and just dumping a special tax request in your lap 5 years ago? You would have voted for it, Jeff? Puuulease. Stop playing people for idiots. You would have engaged in one of your patented podium pounding rants to complain they were trying to pick your pockets. Let’s get real here; the simple fact is NOTHING, NO ACTION OR INACTION on the part of the BoS would have made you happy. How rich that you come in here and post about knee-jerk and shifting blame, because no one can hold a candle to you on that score.
If there is any nugget of agreement to be found here, it’s that we agree bankruptcy is likely. A WAG says that after last week’s meeting it’s a 3 in 4 chance. If you want to see what likely happens, look at today’s Times where they talk about the path taken when school districts go into receivership. The state comes in with money to save the day but at the expense of control going to them.
The answer and way forward for the district is to pass a revenue enhancement(special tax) to properly fund the district to 3/0 w/paramedic levels in all stations. That answer has been sitting on the table for 10 years or more. It’s not news. Failing that, then be content with the new normal of sub-standard fire protection services. Continuing to scream for money that does not exist to fix this mess is pointless.
What I am saying is that to ignore BK or the BK like route is shortsighted and possibly negligent. They should have already sought to gain as much insight as possible from outside expert sources so to factor it into the overall decision-making process. To just say it is to be avoided then ignore it until possibly there is not other choice is, in my opinion, just plain stupid. To say that BK (BK like) programs are only for union busting is even more ridiculous.
But I guess this is just the Contra Costa way of doing things and mr. mankin’s shot at me is the typical method of deflection. This fire district has been neglected and miss managed since its existence and now this ill conceived board is following the typical path set forth by this county’s BOS….just wander around and do some knee-jerk stuff then find some place to shift the blame.
I once again suggest to mankin and anyone else interested in this topic that NOTHING should be off the table and that proper outside opinions should be sought to counter both this board’s lack of knowledge and the legacy thought process that I see limiting the vision necessary to effectively and efficiently deal with this situation that is going to likely get worse before it gets better.
In answer to your question, the $1.4 million in savings should not have been attributed solely to the closures, which as you said will save only $70,000. It was the passage of the entire budget, which includes the closures as well as the elimination of previously budgeted firefighter positions that are now vacant and back-filled with overtime, that created the savings along with other factors.
The board's decision was manifold: close the stations, eliminate the budgeted positions, redeploy firefighters, drop the Cal Fire contract and cut the reserve program after six months. The fact that the board's decision did not fix the budget problem was reported, as was its decision to redeploy the firefighters rather than go with the 8-station, 2-firefighter scenario Finetti proposed. The $70,000 figure, as well as other data pertaining to the various facets of the decision, were not included simply because of the amount of space that would be needed to include everything contained in the 15 pages of notes I took at the meeting.
That said, the story was incorrect in saying the closures saved the district $1.4 million when it was the entire package, of which the closures were only a part, that saved the money. We'll be running a correction this week.
To yourhumblepeasant and Bob Mankin, thank you for the exchanges you are engaged in. There is a ton of information you are bringing forth.
Rick Lemyre
Great points, excellent.
Medicals are definitely going to be more critical than anything. But there may be a small solution. I just learned that the county AMR contract may have actually been written with a 4th QRV in east county as a condition. The county never held AMR to it, now would be a good time for Mary to review the fine print and add that resource!
Another thing, I heard a bit more about the group looking at renewing volunteer/poc services. I still need to gather more info but don't count them out yet, we might actually have something there.
Talk more later. Have a great 4th of July.
Maintenance of response times. Don’t get lost in this back-and-forth the noise and forget that we’re talking about emergency response where minutes means lives. Oakley and Brentwood’s response times do not change one iota while DB/Bryon see an 80-150% increase. As you noted, roll and covers will hit all if they are done as in the past, but from pers. comm with the Chief, those covers are going to be changing. Isolate that factor and the cities may be taking that hit more often than the outlying areas, but it still doesn’t change the everyday response time issue. We’ll have to see how he restructures.
Go back to your earlier post where you broke down meds vs. real fire calls. The cases where 3 on an engine will help with the setup for a structure fire happens how often? 3% of your total calls? So the district has prepared for the 3% at the expense of 97%? Seem reasonable or “striking a balance”?
The Northpoint example was not to slight you or the skills of staff in any way. It’s merely an example of how things go very bad if you can’t get right on a situation quickly. You can have the best people with the best equipment. Doesn’t mean jack if they can’t get there in time because they are stationed too far out. Odds are there will be more Northpoints and statistically it’s more likely that will happen in the areas with the reduced coverage. Setting up that scenario was avoidable.
Proactive vs. reactive.
There is an easy yardstick that can be applied here to settle some of the speculation and I offered it to the Board in a communication earlier in the week. Get the Insurance Services Office people in here to re-evaluate the district after the redeployment. Instead of you, me or the Board speculating on increased risk, bring in the professionals who’s rating our insurance companies are going to rely on in resetting rates in the midst of this mess. I understand they offer some consulting for free, so there is no cost to a strapped district. Then we’ve got hard numbers. DB is currently rated a 4 on the 1-10 ISO scale. Let’s find out what they rate us after redeployment. They will be doing that on their own, but we can judge increased risk sooner rather than later and perhaps avoid a catastrophe before it happens.
A Key excerpt from the ISO rating guide:
560. DISTRIBUTION OF COMPANIES (DC):
The built-upon area of the city should have a first-due engine company within 1-1/2 miles and a ladder-service company within 2-1/2 miles.
ISO establishes "standard response districts" around each existing fire station. The standard response district for an engine company is a polygon defined by streets leading from the fire station out to a distance of 1.5 road miles. For a ladder-service company, the standard response district is a polygon defined by streets out to a distance of 2.5 road miles.
According to Google maps, it’s 2.6 miles from the soon to be consolidated Station 59 to the intersection of Hwy 4/DB Blvd. Everything behind(north) of that will now be in non-standard response areas. That’s the bulk old Discovery Bay. I anticipate the hit to ISO ratings and resulting insurance rates to be substantial.
Enough talking shop. It’s an important holiday for all. Hopefully you’re not working a busy day and can get out to enjoy with your family.
You're right, it is the Community of Discovery Bay and Byron that is getting a decrease in service, but from what I understand when direction came to down the chain to develop the models they essentially broke it down into zones taking into consideration the call volume population and response times. The biggest compromise ended up being the response times to Discovery Bay and Byron. However when you look at the map each major area has a station serving approximately the same number of people. It's very frustrating for everyone, even the rank and file believe it or not.
Thanks for clearing up the details of the LAFCO report, I was a bit hesitant to mention it since I didn't have a copy but that definitely makes more sense now regarding Discovery Bay. With that being taken into consideration when I mentioned Finetti lobbying with the board. Obviously he and his constituents aren't on board with any station closures, but asking for 58 to remain open (rather than 59) as a condition of the 6 station model making reference to the LAFCO report would have been a good argument and would have been a reasonable compromise to the original plan. But I don't know if that was ever discussed. At this point it isn't too late for Finetti to do that.
It's funny that I happened to mention Sweetwater and you knew what I was talking about. That station in San Antone was recently remodeled or replaced but has been there since around WWII. It is a clear cut case of a station solely justified by response time. Historically if there was a fire there it was often reported to or by the station personnel, otherwise it could be several thousand acres before it was spotted by a lookout. But when you look at CAL FIRE it is not a must cover station, is one of the last stations to be staffed in fire season, and is one of the first to be closed in the fall.
About the 3/0 vs. 2/0 and the TWO IN TWO OUT. You're right, from a bystanders point of view that doesn't add up. What people don't understand is how much more efficiency a third person brings to the engine company as an operational unit. When that first engine arrives at scene there are several tasks that need to be completed before we can be operationally ready to make entry and do fire attack. I will give you the cliff notes version.
Upon arrival
A scene size up must be made and reported, for that to be complete the company officer needs to do a 360 around the house. You must also account for the occupants or assume there is a potential rescue(this can be simple or extremely complicated) at which time you must switch gears and go into rescue mode. During the 360 utilities must be located and secured, any significant hazards noted and relayed to incoming units.
A water supply must be established, either by hydrant or by tank water from incoming units such as water tenders or by drafting(the last two can be simple or extremely complexed to arrange)
Hoselines must be deployed, one for fire attack, one for the TWO IN TWO OUT.
Tools must be cached at the entry point, TIC(thermal imaging camera), pike poles, sheetrock pullers, irons etc. Basically a variety of tools needed for whatever we may encounter.
Tools for the TWO IN TWO OUT must also be cached with a minimum of RIT BAG(a firefighter rescue bottle), TIC, irons, search rope, boxlight, wire cutters. (also the charged hoseline listed above)
Appropriate actions must be determined based on priority (RESCUE,EXPOSURES,VENTILATION,ATTACK,SALVAGE)
Assignments given to inbound units and away we go.
This may not sound like that much to accomplish but is necessary prior to entry. If these tasks can be accomplished prior to the second due arriving TWO IN TWO OUT can be established immediately by the first in company and there can be a seemless transition to the attack phase. If not then we still have work to do when they arrive. Even after they arrive smoke conditions may determine a need for vertical ventilation to prevent a flashover or a backdraft and we will still be waiting for the third. If we are on Bethel Island we may still be attempting to establish a water supply and be running on tank water which is only 750 gallons per engine going through nozzles flowing 125-250 GPM. In that case we are taking some risk and could run out of water in the meantime.
Anyhow, when you think of time and motion just getting set up can be quite labor intensive before we even start fighting fire. A two person crew can definitely get it done but will be completely spent and almost worthless to fight fire. A three person crew can get it done with energy to spare and all tasks can be done simultaneously and completed in time for the transition to attack when the second engine arrives. If all I have are two 2/0 crews and everything is accomplished, The IC will either have to be part of the entry team or be part of the TWO OUT one of which will be operating the pump or monitoring the entry point. Under those circumstances you can't command the incident effectively and becomes a recipe for disaster.
Also consider some other scenarios, for instance if there is a rescue.....the first in will be bypassing TWO IN TWO OUT and making entry without ventilation. On a two person crew the operator will be setting the pump and letting it run unattended without a permanent water supply making entry with the firefighter with no eyes on the exterior of the structure. With a three person crew at least the operator will still be able to make a water supply(if available) and ensure that the search team will have water. The operator can also monitor smoke conditions from the exterior and advise the crew inside.
Now lets say we have only two 3/0 companies at scene, we don't like to split crews but we can and it is possible to send two interior, have a TWO OUT(one of them being the operator), and send two to the roof to ventilate. Otherwise we are waiting for at least three companies to arrive. Also ventilation should come before entry, this increases visibility, lowers heat, and boosts the potential for a survivable atmosphere if there are any occupants. In certain situations it is essential.
Another aspect is that since we do not have an aerial ladder our engines carry 35 foot extension ladders. NFPA recommends a 3 person crew to throw them. So basically I need to split a crew up to throw a ladder or use two guys and risk them getting hurt.
Having that third firefighter makes it possible for those essential duties to be divided across a reasonable span with focus. Each member can concentrate on their duties and ensure that all aspects are accounted for. Otherwise if you have an operator also acting as the officer he needs to do the 360, catch utilities etc. or delegate some of it to another unit which could be making entry or venting. It really puts us further behind the curve before we even arrive. Technically I can make entry with two engine companies but there are still a lot of loose ends and it takes more time to do it. I would really need three at 2/0. And that is just barely making it with manpower. Hopefully that answers your question about 3/0 vs. 2/0 and the math with TWO IN TWO OUT.
The second part of your paragraph I think you were referring to the North Point Fire. There were three homes involved but only two of them had significant damage. One was completely gone on arrival the second was getting started the third only had minor damage. I was second in to that fire on 54(10 min. flat from downtown Brentwood that day). We came in right on the heels of 57 who was first to arrive. We laid a water supply in to 57 and from that point the details are a bit fuzzy but from what I recall we had one home virtually on the ground and two exposures. We checked for rescue, and then 57 immediately went into exposure protection of the home getting the most heat on the left. I actually made entry to that house and started fire attack from the interior with only 4 personnel at scene all of us extremely committed to different areas. If anyone really feels that we didn't do anything when we arrived they really have no idea what was going on. That insinuation is personally offensive to me because a significant effort was made by the first arriving units at great personal risk and we didn't lose anything that wasn't already going when we arrived. All I had was a single hoseline (to start) and a probie firefighter with fire on both floors of that house being pushed by the wind and we kept it in check long enough for three alarms to arrive. Sorry I digress, to answer your question we did take immediate action and some might say that the TWO IN TWO OUT rule was bent. There was some time spent establishing water supply and addressing exposures but after that entry was made. Things certainly would have been different if it didn't take two engines (59,58) to do CPR. However, knowing the circumstances of the fire and how it started I am not entirely convinced the end result would have been much better.
We are on the same page regarding the fee schedule. I think they will ultimately find that path doesn't really lead anywhere.
As far as waffling on the district or not district. I don't think that anyone has said we are not a district. I definitely hear what you're saying and in a perfect world you're right. But what else should we do? It becomes an ethical paradox. Do you continue to let it ride on the backs of the rank and file? Or do you reduce services to certain areas? Do you try to strike a balance? We're not going to make everyone happy, ever. We have many mouths to feed and little to go around. My personal opinion is that this is necessary, but I agree it is happening very fast and I don't feel there was adequate time given to inform the public of what was on the horizon. From what I was hearing as a community DB wasn't given much if any formal notification. The information was disseminated by word of mouth and through the papers. Regardless of the circumstances the community deserved something more than that in terms of information and how they had come to this decision.
That response time I gave was right out of the report we received following the North Point Fire. I can't remember if I was already half dressed or not but I did hear 58/59 on the CPR call, I didn't know where 57 was so I was already in the mindset of going that way for anything. When the call hit the radio we were out the door before the printout came and I already knew where I was headed. I actually called the second alarm from Sellers Avenue.
I am with you as far as the message to the voters but I'm going to disagree with you a little bit on one aspect, the "haves and have nots". I'm not saying you are wrong but it is a matter of perspective. What will Oakley and Brentwood have that DB does not have? Oakley has one firehouse with 3 firefighters protecting over 30K. Brentwood has two but has nearly twice the population. DB will have one engine with 3 personnel. Response times will suffer all around. We no longer have the luxury of sending 59 or 57 to cover Brentwood, Oakley, or Bethel Island. 59 will effectively be on a island of its own and probably won't leave except for a major incident. In any case this staffing model won't written in stone. If it does turnout that the response times for medical aids are extended too far in real life when the rubber hits the road I think you will see the 2/0 model come up again to reestablish coverage and we(the rank and file) will deal with the manpower issues. The first several weeks will be closely scrutinized. If it is truly unacceptable they will be hearing it from all sides. There's nothing I hate more than having someone ask me "what took you so long", like I walked there or something.
I have no doubts that Mary Piepho agrees with her husband on this issue, but I don't believe she has stated any such position publicly. Mary has served as a resource to Mr. Finetti, but not stepped up publicly. You imply that Mary has done far too little to address the districts financial problems for far too long, and I completely agree. It is clear that Mary, Fed, and the BOS failed to manage the district responsibly while it was within their jurisdiction. Their stewardship over the district was as shameful as it was but politically expedient and they should be held accountable.
As for the reason Rick Lemyre failed to point out the $70K difference between the two plans, you may be correct that it had more to do with his concern for firefighter safety than cover for his "Yes on Measure F" buddies in and support of their action. I really have no way of knowing why his reporting lacked this critical piece of information, only that it did.
Your participation in this forum is excellent both for the perspective you bring and your ability and willingness to communicate in a positive and civil manner.
Thank you for your service and be safe!
Maybe just dreaming, but a guy can hope. Where we disagree is going to be how to get there.
Keep in mind that I speak for myself and not everyone within the community agrees. In fact, you’ll probably be reading soon about a group of locals who want to force bankruptcy to break your union, pay you even lower wages/benefits than you’re getting now and/or try going with a separate fire department here. I affectionately refer to them as the bunch stuck in the past without a calculator. Just don’t confuse them with the rest of us or the forward looking folks.
The problem here, IMO, is that an establishment of 2 tier service has somehow been deemed acceptable. First was the Board claiming it was all about costs, now this article with the Chief pointing to an upside of firefighter safety. This is a Board flailing to come up with reasons for their actions. That is not to say that firefighter safety is not important or should in any way be discounted. But the fact is you just discounted the public’s safety for about 20,000 people with this decision. Somebody was going to lose, let’s just be clear and honest on who it was.
It also appears union leadership has been sorely lacking in advocating on your behalf.
On your suggestion that Discovery Bay/Byron is rural and the cuts leave us with response times that are within state guidelines; that is incorrect. There were staff documents that had rural as the improper classification for DB. But if you read the LAFCO MSR, footnote at the bottom of page 46, the only areas within the entire county which are officially classified rural are Bethel Island, Jersey Island, Holland Tract, Bradford Island and Morgan Territory. If anyone is using that for legal cover for the decision rendered, they just screwed up big.
To be clear, even with a rural classification for B.I., I don’t think you don’t ever leave those people stranded and your comments suggest we agree there.
Funny you mention the station at Mines and Del Puerto. That’s the poster child for a middle of freakin’ nowhere station. I actually drove by it a few weeks back on my way out to visit a friend. He lives on a hilltop just to the east with a beautiful view of the San Antone Valley. That’s a brand new fire station and I didn’t know it was CalFire. Thought it might be a Santa Clara County outpost. But it illustrates my point as do your comments. You don’t place fire stations based on call volume. You place them based them on preparation and response time for the people to be served. I can point you to several industry studies and white papers to support this. The question becomes what can you or the Board point to which supports your idea that call volume should override?
No argument that current station locations are not strategic. It’s partly the fallout from a growing area. Specific to station 59, that was built by the developer and it’s positioned on property they owned. Hwy 4/Bixler would be better positioned and could probably serve the entire community with a single 3 person station fairly well. But that’s Mormon owned property outside of urban limit line so it has several legal and ownership obstacles that prevented it from happening. We can’t change yesterdays. We can only work to fix it for tomorrow.
One thing I’m not getting here is the repeated statement by both you and the Chief that 3 person engines result in faster attack. How so? You guys don’t operate with 2 in/2 out rule? Don’t you still have to have a Battalion Chief on scene in addition to the first due as a minimum? What if he’s unable to respond? Aren’t you still stuck with waiting for second due? When the big fire happened in DB a couple of years ago that took out 3 houses, wasn’t the complaint after the slow response that the first due couldn’t take action right away for this very reason?
To address your funding thing; we seem to agree 1:1 is not viable or practical, nor are special fees. The Board seems to be heading down that path though for special fees, based on comments from the last meeting, with the same lack of homework on the topic to understand whether administrative overhead will be covered by the fees rendered. Really bad examples of due diligence omissions, one after another by this Board.
Another example; where was the discussion on the double hit to areas experiencing the cuts? Was there any serious discussion on the impact to insurance rating numbers(ISO) for the affected areas or the district as a whole? It’s the dirty little secret the board would probably prefer you didn’t think about. Because they just cut our services and trucks take twice as long to get here, our fire insurance rates could go up by 20-25% on average and even more in areas like Byron and the frontier areas. It’s a double slam, but since doesn’t significantly affect the cities, they didn’t bring it up.
On the revenue side, I have to say you seem to suffer a bit from the same faulty mindset that the board members do. You can’t waffle or switch positions to suit the argument. We are either a fire protection district or we’re not. You can’t jump into percentages paid by whom when it suits. It’s a collective pool of money, period. That thought process of reverting back and forth was probably the single biggest contributor to what I feel was a flawed and potential fiscally fatal decision on the board of the board on Tuesday.
You provide some interesting commentary on property and lives lost possibilities, but the one thing that caught my eye was 10 minutes from E-54 to center of DB. First, note that’s 12 with dispatch and turnout time, but why is E-59/Bixler Rd listed as 11 minute average then? Are you quoting best case, already sitting in the truck type deal?
Director Finetti was correct in his commentary. What they have effectively created is the requirement of a divided message to the voters to sell the idea for a special tax. The message for Brentwood and Oakley is different than that for DB/Byron and in some cases contradictory! The Board has essentially divided the district into the haves and have nots and you can’t sell a ballot measure with a 2/3 approval requirement in that environment. They set themselves up to fail.
YHP, I genuinely want to help you guys out and see you get the support you deserve in all aspects. But this has to be a team effort. Right now the coaches are too busy worrying about themselves. While they might seem today like they have your interest at heart, you should be thinking 1 or 2 years downline. For if a ballot measure fails, then we’re into more closures followed shortly by layoffs in the rank and file. Something they were able to avoid this year. We have to fix this problem with everyone being on the same team and you can’t ask people to advocate for your interests entirely at the expense of their own. That seems to be what you’re suggesting for Finetti/Kenny/Piepho, probably not intentionally so.
As for the Supervisors not bringing a special tax forward, you have to consider all the factors. I would guess 80-90% of the voters here believe that fire district monies are just another part of the county budget and how much flows to it is determined by the Board of Supervisors. That’s obviously not the case. Fire protection is not a mandated public service for the county, a fact few people know. So you would have 5 people, only one of whom lives in the district, proposing a special tax that people here would not see as being necessary. Most wouldn’t understand the dynamics of the need for it. Doomed to fail from the outset.
The task of local governance, that we have to remember all of these Directors asked for, will be as much about educating the voters on the flow of revenues and why stomping your feet and just thinking Martinez needs to send more money down is not an option. I’m not sure they are up to the task and quite honestly on a personal level I couldn’t at this time support blindly giving them more money. They don’t have our community’s interest at heart. Nothing they have done to date indicates that and I would be throwing good money after bad. BTW, Piepho didn’t call a “rally” the week prior to the meeting. That was a group of residents urging the CSD to call a meeting. Supervisor Piepho wasn’t a part of that, though I know she was happy to see it take place.
Finally, the special tax ballot measure must move forward at the same time as a move to get the district to independent special district status with elected seats. As it currently stands, they are exploiting a loophole in the law which allows a conflict to exist whereby council members also sit on this Board. In an independent district that would be against the law. It’s my hope they will do that which would leave me more inclined to support a tax that would not only bring back services to our community, but enhance them from previous levels.
We are running stations here that cost $1.3-$1.4M annually to operate with 2 man engines. The next cheapest in the county on a per station cost basis is Kensington at around $2.1M on contract with El Cerrito. San Ramon Valley is on the extreme high end at $5.1M per station. All other CCCounty districts fall somewhere in between. We have to close that gap with new tax revenues, hopefully getting to 3 man engines w/Paramedic in all stations and at the same time get you guys into proper work conditions. I don’t think the tack the Board is on now is going to get us there.
Thanks again for your input.
I may have some insight to answer your frustration with Rick Lemyre's article. I can't speak for him obviously but here is something to consider and Rick can confirm or deny it later if he wants. Yes you are absolutely right, there is a meager $70K difference in the staffing models. One thing that most people do not realize is that most of the board members were only interested in participating on this board so that they could effect change and improve the working conditions for the firefighters. They obviously wanted to help improve service to the community but at the forefront was their concern for the safety and welfare of the line personnel being understaffed and underpaid. Here are some facts that most members of the community are unaware of, ECCFPD has the highest rate of work comp injuries in the county for any agency or profession, in 12 years I have only seen perhaps 3 people actually retire, in the same amount of time I have seen nearly three times that amount forced to retire medically due to on the job injuries. So in roughly 20 years only 3 of our members have actually made it to retirement. That is significant, and is connected directly to the staffing. Several of the board members when considering to participate pledged to work toward improving our working conditions, not to the district, not the union, but to the rank and file that they see working in the community day in day out. They made us a priority. Nobody has ever done that. We have always been out of sight and out of mind unless someone felt we weren't working hard enough. Now I would imagine that Rick shares some of the same sentiment being that he routinely covers stories related to fire service and perhaps did not find fault when our safety was being made a priority by the selection of a staffing model that worked to enhance the staffing at the company level and improve efficiency and safety.
I have a question for you, please don't take offense or mistake my tone. I'm just asking a question here. You said "And let's be clear, Finetti, Kenny, Piepho et al were all supportive of a revenue enhancement". Has Mary ever supported an enhancement in an open forum? And if so has she done that prior to hearing the station down the street from her house was being closed?
The only reason I ask is because she and Federal have been aware of the financial difficulties here since the day they assumed their positions. They were both advised that it was necessary but refused to act because it would be seemingly unpopular for them to support a new tax or assessment even when times were good. They may have gone on record from time to time acknowledging the fact that there was a disparity in funding to far east county fire services but in the meantime did nothing to improve the situation even when the financial climate was good. That is my take on it. Do you have a different perspective? I mean she rallied the community a week before the board was going to vote, why didn't she rally the community to support the fire district years ago?
Regarding "fighting the tide", what I meant there was simply from a spectators perspective it may have seemed that both Brentwood and Oakley had their minds made up and were on the same page. When there was a vote Kenny and Finnetti were going to be in the minority, you don't have to be political tactician to see that coming. While we were leading up to this showdown of sorts I felt (just my opinion) that they would have been better off recognizing that and moving past the fact of station closures and attempted to gain some concessions of placement of personnel and resources for their constituents. That statement may have been rash because I don't have any first hand knowledge of what was or was not discussed in closed session between the board members, the Fire Chief, etc. It appeared that they were focused on pushing for the 8 station 2/0 model which was not expected to pass by any margin.
Call volume vs. response time is a slippery slope. Especially when you consider a longer response time opens the potential for incident growth resulting in more property loss, greater potential for loss of life, more hazardous circumstances for responders as well more resources needed to mitigate the incident. It becomes a balancing act between the potential and what you can reasonably afford when funding and resources are limited. Cal Fire has a station at the intersection of Mines Road and Del Puerto Canyon, they might get one fire per year in that area, a significant cost for a station there, but if that station was not there it would be 45 minutes to an hour before any unit would arrive on scene for initial attack. For years we have afforded stations such as Byron Sta. 57 and further back in our history Sta. 51 in the Morgan Territory based on response time. Taking our current situation into account we can no longer afford either and when push comes to shove stations that have been justified by response time are naturally the first to go. The cuts have gone even further to include 58 simply due to the lack of funding to support more than one station to serve Discovery Bay. Why 58 and not 59 I think may have been motivated by the ability to house personnel including the QRV medic from 57. Don't quote me on that. As far as studies go I can't recall which study it was (Citygate?) but one of the issues that was noted was station placement. If you look at the district post consolidation, things were supposed to have been streamlined to run more efficiently and effectively, but what we have is every town still has the same number of stations located where they were placed historically. For instance station 54 was the center of Brentwood 40 years ago, Station 93 is nowhere near the center of Oakley. Both could be placed to better serve their communities and actually negate the need for one or two other stations. Take Station 59 as another example, if that station had been placed at HW4 and Bixler or even the intersection at J4 and HW4/Byron HW it could serve Byron and Discovery Bay effectively without the need for 58 or 57. But what we have are pre-existing stations out of alignment with current demand as well as a new station placed due to opportunity in a spot that does not effectively serve that community because of the route it must travel to address the demand. Yes there are clear cut examples of stations being placed and staffed due to demand, 94 for instance was POC for years but was ultimately staffed when 54 was responding to a majority of its calls. Other examples would be anywhere that you see engines running 10-20 calls per 24 hour shift. In that case they would probably run more but they are not available and you see other units moving up to cover and pick up the slack which is the case on a daily basis when you have 94 running calls in Oakley. In that instance you have an argument in favor of another station or perhaps a second unit staffed in an existing station. You mentioned Moraga/Orinda, that entire fire department gets about as many perhaps less calls annually as E-93 in Oakley. However they are staffed due to response times and the potential for catastrophic incidents as a minimum necessary to mitigate the incident. If a structure fire escalates to anything beyond a first alarm assignment their resources are quickly depleted and it becomes necessary for mutual aid to respond from other agencies.
Smells and bells calls......that would require a little bit of research to give you an exact figure but based on my experience what I usually keep in the back of my head is that this job is about 10% action and 90% preparation, meaning that 1 out of 10 fires on average seem to be full blown working fires, but you might get them all at once or they could be spread out. So about 80% being medical/vehicle accidents/rescue and the other 20% being fire related and of that 20% 1 in 10 being legitimate fires but that percentage obviously goes up this time of year as our call volume almost doubles during fire season.
Concessions......you may have read me wrong on that. What I meant specifically was for the representatives to be part of the solution and lobbying for "concessions" in the wake of a bad situation. For instance when I mentioned the placement of staffing at 3/0, I would have been more impressed if Finetti and Kenny would have been asking for something more creative than 2/0 staffing across the board. Something like putting a third person at 95 or 94 so that we could get some 3 person companies on scene in Bethel Island more quickly for example. Having the first and second due engines to the island staffed at 2/0 doesn't really do anything for us(firefighters/community). But as far as the response times go (I acknowledge this sounds very cold) LAFCO indentifies the unincorporated area as being rural and has set acceptable response times for those areas, from what I understand the 6 station model will satisfy the expectation outlined in that report for response times.
Should services be doled out 1:1, not necessarily. The idea is that this is a distict where the resources are shared. No one community has enough resources or revenue to have a functioning fire department capable of handling its own business, but when funding is limited and cuts need to be made the least productive or seldom utilized resources are the first to go. The closing of 57 and 58 obviously will have impact on services for Byron and Discovery Bay but there will also be a significant impact on Brentwood and Oakley when E-54 has to move up and cover Discovery Bay, or when there is a single alarm structure fire and there is only 1 engine company left to shag calls throughout the entire district. But like I said before it is a balancing act between coverage and what the district can afford. From what I can see it seems that the resources will doled out somewhat more evenly to the populations than what we have today.
In terms of renters, I don't see that as a factor since the landlord/property owner should be paying property taxes in their place. As far as transients there has been talk about possibly doing some kind of a fee schedule for cost recovery in cases where we have rendered care to non-residents but that idea has not really gone anywhere and would be negligible in terms of actual funds recouped. The bottom line is that we are going to take care of people regardless of where they reside.
Post realignment.......each station is going to be busy in their own right, of the 6 stations I would see 54 and 59 as being the most challenging. 52, 93, 94, and 95 aren't really going to see a dramatic shift in their daily operation. Although 95 will always have challenges like lack of water(I know it's surrounded by water but drafting from the top of a 30' levee at low tide with weed choked shoreline defies the laws of physics and pump theory), extended response times for additional help, for crying out load EVEN THE DIRT BURNS out there. 59 will now be responding to an area previously covered by 3 stations and 54 will be second due to that area. I mentioned before that we will definitely have to be more dynamic, what that boils down to is knowing the history of incidents and the potential so when 59 gets called for a boating accident 54 will need to be moving that direction in preparation to assist or at least straddle the distance between Brentwood and Discovery Bay to be in position to respond to other calls. Realistically the most difficult job or most challenging job will be the Battalion Chief who needs to decide on the fly what resources are needed for the incident weighed against the need to keep units available. It becomes a paradox between keeping five units on scene to overhaul a fire more quickly or do you release 4 of the 5 and keep 1 on scene for an extended period. When there were only 4 East Diablo stations it was common for you to be the first show and the last to go after a 12 hour mop up phase.
As far as personnel per population, the going rate seems to be one engine per 20-30,000 people. With that population being served it generates enough calls to justify the engine company. Otherwise we might be looking at POC but we have already done that and their ability to cover all the calls has dictated fulltime staffing.
When we talk about the progression of fires it makes more sense to stop a fire when it is small, but it really becomes a toss up when you look at risk vs. gain and what you can save. Obviously there can be a significant effort made to extinguish a fire at great personal risk to the firefighters, but that does not translate into preservation of property. In most cases regardless of how great a job the firefighters did the home will be completely demolished or at the very least stripped down to the studs and rebuilt. First in companies can easily account for exposures, after that having a well developed fire that has vented is a much safer scenario for me since if it has already flashed it wont flash on me while I'm crawling on my hands and knees looking for it. Either way whether it is a well developed free burning fire or a room and contents fire the resulting smoke and water damage will be so significant that there is very little to actually salvage and most of it becomes a loss. If we have prevented the fire from extending beyond the building of origin we have done a decent job at limiting the property loss and keeping the fire contained.
For medicals you don't need me to tell you that those responses will be significant. The one thing that bodes well is that the QRV is slated for 59 which is an improvement for ALS care in Discovery Bay, but doesn't do much for service in the rest of Byron. We were talking a while back about response times from 59 to the end of the BLVD, I was saying 7 minutes, I didn't account for 911 transfers and dispatch time, only response time from quarters. As a second due company I know for a fact that E-54 can be to the middle of Disco in 10 minutes flat.
Reasons for the parcel tax, I was just giving one example of how to sell it to the people who might feel they already have what they need. I figured that the reasons for the other groups in the unincorporated areas were already well established and need not be mentioned. Restoration and or enhancement of service. That seems to be the big hurdle though, for those who are opposed to even putting a tax on the ballot for fear that it wouldn't pass. Their short sightedness is really frustrating. Honestly, how did any agency ever get a fire tax or a school bond to pass? They put it on the ballot and kept putting it on the ballot until they got the votes they needed for it to pass. Like I said in another post "I can guarantee that it will never pass if they don't even try". I think that the tax needs to be sold to the majority of the voters(being the Oakley and Brentwood residents) simply because it will be their votes that will insure that it does pass. If we do not get this to pass within a few years the level of service being provided will be directly commensurate with the dollars paid, which will not amount to much. I that a week or so ago you remarked that it looked like I got my way when it became evident that we were heading for 6 stations. Don't worry I know what you meant, but if I had my way we would be looking at 7 possibly 8 stations staffed at 3/0 across the board. I said 7 because if I had my way a three stations would be relocated strategically to reduce response time and enhance coverage. The concept of streamlining operations and delivering the best service possible should be the focus. Tier 1 service should be something to strive for. The current administration has the ability to deliver but they have had their hands tied behind their backs, crippled by lack of funding and low morale of guys who have been working twice as hard as their counterparts for half the pay. These guys really take a lot of pride and ownership of their jobs but it's embarrassing at times to admit that we aren't just understaffed, we aren't just underpaid, we are about 20% away from being tied for last place in this county. Yet we show up everyday for work and want to deliver the level of service that this community deserves, we're just at a severe disadvantage. We need the support of the community to help us do better for them.
Hope that answers some of your questions. Keep in mind most of it is just the way I see things, it's not right or wrong.
I’ll assume you are game and start.
What I would call us fighting to maintain respectable response times to our community, you appear to be calling “fighting against the tide”. What is the “tide” in the context that you use it?
Would it be safe for me to assume that you are onboard with the mindset of the city council members sitting on the board and you think placement of fire stations within districts should be based first on call volumes and not response times? Do you base this on any professional study, training, industry standards or just personal preference? Do you think all fire districts of any size have stations built and located with call volume as the primary driver? I would point to some well funded districts for comparatives in the area such as Orinda-Moraga or San Ramon Valley. I believe they are affectionately referred in the brotherhood as the districts of the “Rich and Flameless”. Meaning they are well funded, well staffed, but don’t have nearly the volume of some of the stations in this district.
How many of the calls within the high call volume stations you point to are “smells and bells” calls? Meaning a truck rolls, but there is no real emergency.
Your suggestion to make concessions means that we in the outlying areas are expected to live with response times climbing to 12 or 14 minutes for the extremities of Discovery Bay, similar times for Byron, while the cities will maintain their existing and within industry guideline 6-7 minute response times. Am I reading that concession statement right? That’s justified why? Because we’re unincorporated?
Related question: do you think public safety services should only be doled out on a 1:1 tax dollars for services basis? That is, if you pay more than your neighbor, that you get a higher quality of service than he does, or vice versa?
Leads to a kind of an underhanded question, but what about renters? Since the district is funded in the high 90’s percentile with property tax money, do you move this toward a district where if you’re not paying, you’re on your own? What about transient people just passing through town? If they have a need for your services, but since they don’t pay into the district, what do you do there? These might seem really silly, but I’m just trying to learn where we draw the line.
Would it be fair for me to suggest that station workload is actually a combination of call volume and geographic area that the station is expected to serve as a first responder? If that is a fair assessment, which station do you estimate is going to be the most challenging one of the 6 after the realignment? When you size up a station, do you go with fire fighter per 1,000 people as a measure or something else? A tip: the Chief leans on this latter metric(pers. Comm.)
When an area served goes from a 6.5 minute response time average to 11 with 12-14 at the extremes and in the case of a structure fire, do you have any feel for how many instances of flashovers are created that might have instead been structures that could have been saved?
In the case of an EMS call, going from 6.5 average to that same 11, 12 or 14 minute response to a person not breathing, are we talking minimal, moderate or critical impact to the likely outcome of those situations?
In your next to last paragraph you state that the only reason for Brentwood and Oakley to really sign up for the coming parcel tax measure is so that you can fund and stage resources that are primarily to be tapped to serve the cities. I didn’t see any mention of restoring service to the people who were just cut off or any concern about reducing the new, but unacceptable response times for 20k or more people. I’m reading a focus of just targeting funding who’s primary purpose is to support the cities. Did I read that right or miss something because I read it a few times and I couldn’t find anything in there that concerns our needs in the unincorporated areas.
From the perspective of the unincorporated areas who were just cut off at the knees; what approach or sales pitch should be made to us in asking for support of the parcel tax? Do you offer up a “we sincerely want to give you tier 1 service” on the one extreme or is it the “let ‘em eat cake” approach on the other and you don’t even bother to appeal to our voters?
I appreciate it in advance if you’ll help further our understanding.
That $70K is not going to make a whit of difference in the fiscal solvency of the district. Of course staffing will be enhanced in the stations that remain open (thankfully no firefighters are being laid of) but response times will suffer overall.
I attended the meeting; The $70K variance between the plan that Finetti raised in his motion and the one that closed two stations was a key discussion point. Rick heard it several times, knows it is true, and still didn't include it in his article. Instead he implies that the district will save twenty times that amount each year by closing two stations.
Please re-read Rick's article and ask yourself why he would have left this $70K fact out? Other than backing up his "Yes On Measure F" buddies, can you think of any reason?
If Rick has a good reason for not including this fact in his article I am sure he will share it here...
And let's be clear, Finetti, Kenny, Piepho et al were all supportive of a revenue enhancement. Unfortunately I expect that this decision by Brentwood and Oakley's city council will damage the credibility of the board and public's trust in them.
I believe we need to work towards having fully staffed stations with 3 firefighters and a paramedic. I only wish the board would have acted on behalf of the entire district to keep all the stations open in the short term while gathering support for a revenue enhancement that would bring our fire services up to that standard.
At this point, if Discovery Bay does not want to be at the mercy of Brentwood and Oakley politicians it should explore separating itself from the district.
Don Flint
Rather than fighting the inevitable, their communities would have been better served if they would have accepted the station closures (based on the facts) and lobbied for some compromise in the allocation of the resources.
For example, there will be four stations staffed at 3/0, which stations? There has been talk of station 52 and 59 being upstaffed to 3/0. Why not upstaff station 94 or 95? Station 52 is one of the busiest in the district however it already houses a QRV PM77 and is virtually surrounded by 3 person engine companies. So for anything other than a fire they are already responding with 3 (including the QRV medic), for anything else their second, third, and sometimes the fourth due companies are all staffed with 3 in an area that is not only hydranted but is also predominantly new construction equipped with residential fire sprinklers. If any companies get an increase in staffing the community and the firefighters would be better served by sending that additional manpower to a station that is already running short, does not have hydrants, and is furthest from additional help. 95 will not house a third firefighter due to limited space already being shared with a QRV unless alternative housing can be secured, so the next logical choice would be 94, a station that straddles the borders between the busiest areas and those with the greatest manpower needs.
Certain resource allocations can be easily justified in the interest of both public and firefighter safety while we are all trying to make the best of a very difficult situation. 52 can handle most of its incidents with the staffing it has, otherwise additional help is not far. 95 and 94 both encompass areas with unique challenges that are more labor intensive than most and require additional manpower to overcome.
Those representing the unincorporated areas have been focused on holding back the tide. They need to take step back and spend their energy lobbying for reasonable concessions. And not 8 stations at 2/0. That mentality of letting things lie and see what happens later is how we got into this situation.
As far as a tax or assessment goes it seems that there is a perspective that the majority of voters (Brentwood and Oakley residents)won't favor a new tax or assessment if the money will be going to fund outlying service areas. The idea needs to sold to the majority that while Brentwood and Oakley residents may subsidize the staffing in the unincorporated areas, it is those engines that respond to assist when Brentwood and Oakley have a major incident. By helping to pay for those additional companies they are ensuring that there will be enough resources to fill the balance of what is needed to respond and also have enough resources to cover in the meantime. That is the mentality that the administrators and politicians need to convey and sell to the public. Everyone needs to work hand in hand, the politicians, the firefighters and the people they serve.
And Bethel Island Sta. 95 (despite being condemned) is still open and is not slated for closure.
(copied direct from the city document)
I. Fire Suppression and Emergency Medical Services.
a) Fire fighting and emergency medical service personnel salaries, benefits and
other associated operations and maintenance costs which are needed for the daily activities and normal employment of these types of personnel.
If the City chooses to use any all or part of the 2.8 Million for Libraries, Senior Centers, and Adams Gym and not send a penny of those dollars to enhance fire, OK.
But the citizens of Brentwood and the firefighters that endanger thier lives need to know that. Especially when a third tax is about to be sold to the public but will not be able to be accessed if it passes for two years.
I thought the entire district was one unit where everyone assists each other.