County Supervisor Mary Piepho was recently quoted in the Brentwood Press touting the ability of fire district employees to retire at age 50 with a pension at nearly full salary, calling it the “industry standard.” Unfortunately, the article failed to note that Piepho is married to a firefighter, and has a personal interest in defending this generous retirement benefit.
It’s instructive to look at the effect this industry standard has had on other fire districts in the county, based on data from the Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association.
· Forty percent of the 645 county retirees receiving pensions of $100,000 or more used to work for fire districts.
· More than half of those receiving pensions of $200,000 or more are retired fire district employees.
· The top pension retiree is, you guessed it, a former fire district employee enjoying more than $300,000 every year.
Twenty-eight percent of those receiving $100,000-plus pensions worked for the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District. As a result of generous salaries and benefits, ConFire, which is much better funded than our fire district, is broke and will likely be seeking a tax hike in November.
The industry standard championed by our supervisor is great for fire district employees, but not so great for taxpayers who get stuck with the tab. This is the future of our fire district if Measure $ passes. Instead of a fire protection district, ECCFPD is morphing into a retirement protection district. Vote no on Measure $.
Dave Roberts, Oakley
This article shows the fire tax proponents haven't even tried to resolve the biggest issues...UNFUNFED liabilities!
This s one of, if not THE worst taxes ever.
Worst Tax Ever... May 31, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Key point here is that ECC residents pay the same amount of money to the county and the County then allocates a much smaller percentage back to ECC for fire protection services than what Orinda receives back. This is the fault of ECC? Not at all!
In fact and ECC isn’t paying less; ECC is just GETTING less. But that’s not why this tax should be defeated.
The reason this new tax should fail is it is does not propose a reasonable solution. The district have worked with the union to negotiate a sustainable wage and benefit model and then determined a more affordable solution. Why postpone those negotiations when they could have demonstrate that they can work out something that will protect firefighter jobs and not bankrupt the district? Why involve new paramedic services when we can’t even afford the fire services at this point and we are already taxed for and receiving QRVs through the County?
Outrageous level of Tax Hubris by a fire board that is not legally formed as an “Independent Special District” because the board itself is appointed by the CCC-BOS and is overrun by City Councilman from Brentwood and Oakley.
Special interests = firefighters and anyone married to one
The industry standard= no unions and no pensions ( the private sector businesses
If the union stays to protect workers rights okay but no pensions period. Pay firefighters $40 an hour to sleep at station and wash trucks and respond to call outs, that is fair for their profession. They can open their own 401k's like the rest of the business world that even makes a profit in their businesses.
Are you aware of the claims that are related not to the age of the "injured worker" but rather the fact thata they are retiring and follow a standard course of pre-retirement claims to account for all of cumulative trauma they have endured during their careers? Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but whether they retire at 30, 40, or 50 these claims will generally be filed.
Ask Mr. Wells. He can refer you to the WC law firm his Union routes its members to.
This is proof yet again Dave Roberts is playing with facts and should be taken with a grain of salt.
By the way, while Mr. Roberts attack pensions, I guess Mr. Roberts is not aware of the CALPERS document that disability/workman’s compensation claims for firefighters over 50-55 climb by 700%, thus costing taxpayers even more money. As much as I can appreciate and firefighters and what they do, there is a reason why we do not want 60 year old firefighters.
There is also no reason you can’t have 60 years old employees at ECCFPD. Management could really use seasoned experienced firefighters. Right now I do not think one of them is over 40ish. I’m not saying those BC’s are incapable, they are and very valuable to the district. I’m just saying there are places in every organization for seasoned employees.
Thank you Mr. Roberts for your prospective in valuable information. No on $$$$
You missed the point of my letter.
The damage in ECCFPD has been minimal thus far because it's a new district. But the fiscal hemmorhaging that has occurred in other districts will also occur in ECCFPD as it moves toward the "industry standard."
The fiscal situation is already quite bad. Nearly one out of every four dollars spent in the district goes not for fire protection, but instead for retirement expenses. That will escalate as more Baby Boomers working for the district retire. Soon one out of every three dollars will go for retirement and eventually more than half.
Nothing will change if Measure $ passes. That's why it's essential to vote no on $.