Brentwood voter Ginny Montañez has the polling place virtually to herself as she signs in to vote Tuesday. Only 56 voters cast ballots in this location, and just 31 percent turned out in the county overall.
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Photo by Richard Wisdom
The measure, which needed a two-thirds majority to pass, got only 6,193 Yes votes, or 44 percent of the 14,216 votes cast.
“Right now, it’s clear a super-majority of voters aren’t willing to pay for additional services, so now we have our marching orders and will work with the budget we have, providing the best service possible, even as we are forced to vote on what stations to close and how many firefighters to lay off,” ECCFPD Board President Kevin Romick wrote in a press release. “We simply wanted to give voters a choice and we feel we did that in a straightforward and transparent process.” The district’s $12 million budget must be cut to $8 million to make ends meet.
A disappointed Fire Chief Hugh Henderson said the board next week will consider two alternatives developed earlier as a contingency should Measure S fail. One is a three-station model staffing three firefighters at each, which would place nine firefighters on duty at all times in the district. The other is a four-station model staffing two firefighters at each, putting a total of eight firefighters on duty.
“Neither service model is going to make anybody happy,” Henderson said Wednesday. “We have to just put the best service out there we can.”
According to Oakley resident Dave Roberts, an outspoken opponent of the tax, the defeat of Measure S was not surprising, given the state of the economy and the massive pension debt facing the district.
“Had the fire district done everything it could to cut costs, the voters might have looked more favorably on this significant tax hike,” said Roberts. Freezing salaries, cutting overtime, reducing pensions and hiring more paid-on-call firefighters all should be on the table for possible reductions, he said, as should investigating the hiring of a private-sector fire protection service.
“Whichever course the district chooses, it won’t be easy,” Roberts added. “But just as over-taxed taxpayers have had to tighten their belts, so should the government.”
Measure S supporters who gathered at a local restaurant Tuesday evening to watch returns come in were saddened by the results and shocked at the size of the defeat. President Vince Wells of firefighter Union Local 1230 believes a critical public-safety problem was overwhelmed when the discussion turned from the short-term effort to keep stations open to the long-term need for benefit reform.
“Unfortunately, a message got out there that this was about pensions,” Wells said. “Hopefully, another plan will come forward, but I’m not optimistic they will have anything in place too soon.”
As many as 19 firefighters are facing layoffs, including Kalani Dillon, a captain at Bethel Island’s Station 95, which is expected to be one of the stations closed. It is the loss of so many dedicated locals, many of whom served as paid-on-call firefighters for years prior to becoming full-timers, that is most upsetting.
“It’s not the money and it’s not pensions,” he said. “It’s all the local boys who are losing their jobs. Some of us have turned down better-paying jobs in other departments to stay and serve this community, and then this happens. It hurts.”
Henderson said next week’s fire board meeting would decide which stations would close, and that a final budget required to implement the changes would go before the board for a vote on June 25. Layoffs and station closures would take effect on July 1.
“As chief, I couldn’t be any prouder of the firefighters who have continued to put in 110 percent through all of this,” Henderson said, adding that that the stiff-upper-lip attitude that has long maintained morale in the chronically underfunded department has taken a huge hit.
“This,” Henderson said, “was overwhelming.”
The real interesting point is what the public has done in the City of San Jose and beyond voting as it relates to pension reform. This in itself is the key to the survival of our public services not being further reduced by high pension debt.
Several key points that I seen posted on different sites and discussion by members of the community are listed below. These ideas or suggestions should now be looked at closer and be considered by the BOS and the appointed Commission. Keep in mind this is not a list of to do. This is merely a list of ideas that have been either spoken about in the public or provided in the past;
#1) A new entire combined county fire.
#2) Serious Pension reforms that should now include tiered contributions that directly affect the end pension pay out so we pay as we go.
#3) Keep the management of the district separate from the union.
#4) Consider contracting out fire services.
#5) Consider 2 person engines as in the past.
#6) Consider increasing the reserve force.
#7) Consider entry level positions to lower overall costs.
#8) Change the shift schedule to reduce operating costs.
#9) Reduce the operating costs by eliminating leased office space while the district has vacant stations empty that could be used.
#10) Consider the district as one unit instead of who pays what where. Take the politics out of the management of the district.
#12) Consider a moratorium on all new permits for construction that affect fire services or 100% mitigation in those areas
#13) Enact any new approved development within the district to mandate a specific benefit assessment district. ( this does not need a vote of the public, just a vote of the developer/landowner)
#14) Ask the municipalities to supplement within their City/CSD/ County limits. Each has funds that may be used from the BOS down to the Cities.
#15) File for bankruptcy if the district is truly independent, see if the state will step in.
#16) Once serious reform/reorganization is modeled to be more in line with a permanent solution, a lesser tax could be reintroduced.
#17) Change bargaining unions
#18) Any other suggestions from people that are prudent, logical, and cost saving.
I think this is an ideal time for the union (since they delayed negotiations until after the vote) to immediately step up and show the public how sincere they are to reform some of the extensive over generous pension costs. By doing so it will allow the Commission an easier task and making the serious choices before them.
I would like to see positive comments on replies rather criticizing any idea. All ideas should be looked at. I trust the District and the BOS are intelligent enough to select and/or consider doable ideas. They now understand the tools they have to make the best
One of the reasons Measure $ failed is that there is a disconnect between far East County residents and their fire district. Webcasting the meetings will help bridge that gap.
I think that is a great idea. I can't get out that often because of my age and income. I am glad that my thoughts on this subject were the same as so many people. The firemen need to huddle together and talk to the union man to save jobs when they negotiate.
My mother would be so offended if she saw how her son has become the villian in this forum, but hey, I keep putting my name in for a new term. No one in this forum knows me personally, so I try not to get offended, but it's a challenge at times. Allow me to clarify my roll and explain the fire fighter union for a minute. As President, I am the leader and spokes person for all of the departments/districts that we represent. I am the spokesperson to the press, at public meetings, negotiations, and even funerals. I also communicate with all of the other fire Locals through out the state and attend conferences and conventions, along with other elected officers in Local 1230. I am very well aware of the public sentiment regarding our salaries and benefits and pensions. It is my job to educate our members as to what that is and make suggestions based on their expectations or wishes. I am also aware of the budget situation in all of the jurisdictions we represent, and the concerns of those politician and community. I attend the council or board meetings in order to stay informed, so I can inform my membership. When we prepare for contract negotiations we hold meetings and take input from our members. My say, goes as far as my members allow it to go. If they are willing to ask for something that is out of line in todays economy I do advise them against it, sometimes very strongly. If you look at the contracts of the members in the 6 jurisdictions we represent, since i have been President, we have gone backwards or stayed the same. We have been very responsive to the environment we are in. Despite the spin that was placed on why our contract negotiations were delayed until after the election, the truth is we have done yearly contracts with no changes since 2007. There was no big money deal dependent on the tax passing or not. Our contract covers more then salary and benefits. Many of the other items in the contract would have been dependent on 27 fire fighters versus the 63 that we would be getting to depending on the tax. Also a paramedic program would have to be developed, along with many other contractual changes. It made absolutely no sense to make a contract until we knew the outcome of Measure S. The press and others, made it look like it was about pay and benefits. Unfortunately, we do not get the access to the press like the opposition does. My quotes are partially printed and our goals twisted by the cctimes. We suspected that, but still chose to do the right thing. It is very easy these days to make us look like we are up to no good. Any politician who knows me, knows that I will go back to our members and make the appropriate recommendations on supporting necessary changes to get through tough times and to be sustainable, despite how unpopular it maybe to my members. In Con Fire I recommended a 10% pay cut to keep stations open. I barly made it out the building, but was able to get majority support. We operate under our own constitution and by-laws, which I am liable to uphold.
Again our track record speaks for itself. Local 1230 has saved the county, cities, and districts we represent, millions of dollars over the last three years.
Measure S
ECCCFPD had a funding problem since it's inception. Well before the market crash and the pension cost increases. I was assigned East County when I was a Vice President back in 2005. We were working with all communities back then, to find a funding source. I learned all about prop 13 and property tax increments through this process. The portion of the 1% that was appropriated for ECCCFPD was a hot topic back then and up to now. All involved were trying to figure out a way to overcome that gap. Everything from developer fees, to benefit assessments, and a parcel tax, was being discussed. A plan was put in place to get local control of the fire district first, then go for a tax. Unfortunately, 2008 came along and the housing market crashed. Property taxes went down, and here we are today. A deficit caused by tax appropriation and now combined with loss of assessed value and on top of that, pension contributions have increased due to the market loss as well. I am not trying to say that the pension issue doesn't need to be addressed, but I will say it is not the cause. Pension cost have went up 500,000.00 since 2008, but we lost 4 million dollars in revenue due to the housing market crash, added to a underfunded fire department. As long as we all look at it that way, we can have a responsible conversation.Those who turn it into a pension only issue, of course we take a stance! Let's work to resolve the entire problem.
When the tax amount was being discussed, the question was; do we ask for enough to maintain satus quo, underfunded and the understaffed level, or do we go for fixing the entire problem at one time. Obviously the voters have spoken, but again, don't ask us to view this responsibly, but not do that yourself. It may have been voted down due to pensions, or just the timing, who knows. Those who have been following this issue, know that it had a funding problem long before 3%@50 kicked in (2005). We are willing to work with the fire district, as we always have, but will oppose the offensive nature being taken against us and our profession. The ECCCFD has done what they could to work through their financial challenge. The parcel tax was always part of the strategy. Unfortunately, the entire Country has been hit by the recession. Dont lecture me about being a responsible leader through tough times, I can assure you I have been. As a military veteran, and a 17 year fire fighter, I will defend against those who are using this recession for their own personnel gain and work with those who are serious and reasonable. Feel free to call me or email me with responsible suggestions that address all the facts and I will be happy to meet or talk to you! We are willing participants in a permanent solution that supports everyone's interest. vwells@iafflocal1230.org
LETS SERIOUSLY CONSIDER PRIVITIZATION OF THE FIRE SERVICE> We can be Leaders and Forward thinkers in East County. End Ridiculous pensions. Employees need to be responsible themselves to put away money for their families retirement, not tax-payers.
Are you serious? Employees are not responsible to put money away for their families retirement. Even myself, who is employed in the private sector is at the mercy of my companies 401K program. My choices are Merrill Lynch, Schwab Investments or whatever other fund my company allows me to put money into. If you are serious about pension reform, then let's reform it for teachers, congressmen, assemblymen, senators, sanitation works, county supervisors, county workers, state worker, OSHPD, UC Professors and staff, CSU Professors and staff. Don't just pick on firemen! What you should be barking about are those Congressmen and Assemblymen that we elect who serve for 1 or 2 terms and get full package medical benefits...some for life. I don't see these people pulling loved ones out of emergency situations or putting themselves in harm every day.
While I know you and others believe that the union is out to fatten their pay checks and see that they get a lavish retirement. One MAJOR concern of the union is to see that the safety of it's members is of most importance. Right now several Firfighters are out and have been out on nasty injuries that just so happened to be while they were working on a two person Engine. So while you may feel it is a ploy to make
thing's look drastic IT IS NOT. You may feel that your firfighters are bandits and if you do not then please stop talking like you do to make them look that way. It's over you won okay, now the firefighters and staff must still do their jobs and they will, at least what's left. What is so wrong with the guys wanting to come home in one piece to their wifes and children. Okay they are down now but not out so why must you now act like a child and pour salt on the wounds. When you speak of the union you are speaking of the union you are speaking to them THEY ARE THE UNION. They are not bandits.
I absolutely do not view the terms union and firefighter as synonymous.
If they were you would not have a guy (who makes a lot more than you do) from another FD as your mouthpiece.
In the context of the bundled solution has been recommended to solve the FD $$ problems former ECCFPD people would be paid about the same. New hires could be less and former Con Fire people could be less.
Under the proposal there would be enough people staffing stations on regular shifts. The difference is some on duty working regular shifts would not be getting the full union load. They would be something less that full time.....just like at other FDs.
so for ECCFPD people you get the same wage (sorry, the pension will change) and you get more staffing. To me that sounds way better than the alternative.
The funny thing is, in all this is I have not seen any alternatives brought forward by the 'union' except seeking more money. Now we all know that is not going to happen...so lets see the union step up and be constructive beyond the obvious.
Notice the exit polls in Wisconsin? Union members supported Walker in surprising numbers. If union members are stepping up and calling BS then you have to expect even the union leadership (Mr. Wells) can hear the music. And it is clear to mat of us that firefighters and the union are not synonymous.
Since you raised the issue I will ask; how many of our FF are out on comp claims right now? Which ones were working in two man environments when the injury occurred? Which of these injuries were cumulative trauma as oppose to specific incidents? Which of the injuries did the union attribute to two man environments. Did te district reach the same conclusion?
Chief Henderson, is this information available (or can it be made available) to the public, perhaps in redacted form.
Probably all issues and questions that the appointed board has already asked about in consideration of the deployment decisions that are pending. Without it, everyone would be limited to anecdotal information provided by the union spokesperson....and we don't want to manage on that basis, do we?
While I know you and others believe that the union is out to fatten their pay checks and see that they get a lavish retirement. One MAJOR concern of the union is to see that the safety of it's members is of most importance. Right now several Firfighters are out and have been out on nasty injuries that just so happened to be while they were working on a two person Engine. So while you may feel it is a ploy to make
thing's look drastic IT IS NOT. You may feel that your firfighters are bandits and if you do not then please stop talking like you do to make them look that way. It's over you won okay, now the firefighters and staff must still do their jobs and they will, at least what's left. What is so wrong with the guys wanting to come home in one piece to their wifes and children. Okay they are down now but not out so why must you now act like a child and pour salt on the wounds. When you speak of the union you are speaking of the union you are speaking to them THEY ARE THE UNION. They are not bandits.
Rick
Here's the full text of what I sent:
Reaction
I'm not surprised that a $2,200 tax hike, when many people are still hurting from the Great Recession, failed to win majority approval, let alone the two-thirds needed to pass. Had the fire district done everything it could to cut costs, the voters might have looked more favorably on this significant tax hike.
Next
One of the options worth studying is privatization. The private sector performs many services better, more efficiently and cheaper than the government. Instead of closing stations, it may turn out that a private company can provide comparable, perhaps better, fire protection service for the available money.
The other option is to cut costs: reduce overtime, freeze salaries, reduce benefits like the ability to retire at 50 with a pension at nearly full pay, hire more paid on-call and volunteer firefighters, balance the top-heavy staffing, etc.
Whichever course the district chooses, it won't be easy. But, just as over-taxed taxpayers have had to tighten their belts, so should the government.
Now that this is over, we can begin working on solutions. I hope to see you both at monday's meeting so you can bring your ideas forward.
To be honest I consider the board meetings a hostile environment toward anyone who opines against the status quo. Your angry written words calling for recourse have made the situation worse.
I have been to and spoke at several meetings, my spoken words were summarily rejected. So now I only submit in writing and in advance of the meetings so that there is time to reflect on what is being suggested.
I believe my new approach will be more effective than my old approach...heck it can't be any worse! Everything I would say on person has been said and delivered in writing.
I've been to every meeting for about a year now. I've never seen any meeting be hostile to anyone. More to the point, how can a meeting be hostile since no dialog takes place between commentators and the board?
I am very glad you have sent your ideas to the world, but if they were rejected the first time, why should it be considered now?
I have attended enough ECCFPD meetings to know that they are not intended for a free flow of ideas that will result in any consideration by the board. As Mr. Burkholder points out, there is no dialogue between the Board and the public at these meetings. Without actual give and take it is difficult to do anything other than talk AT each other, and the public is limited to three minutes of talking even at that.
It is disingenuous and silly to imply (as some people have) that members of the public who do not attend the meetings should somehow forfeit their right to voice opinions publicly in these forums or in letters to the appointed and elected representatives.
Hopefully Mr. Barber’s comments will garner more consideration than in the past. Certainly the board should have learned a lot about the community as they watched their tax initiative get hammered by the voters. They can spin it anyway they like: low turnout or stupid, misinformed, and selfish voters. But the board would be wise to realize that they and the union spent a lot of time and money on a venture that failed miserably and it is time to do something different.
The district should be managed by management, not labor. While the phrase “new normal” may be a bit trite, Wisconsin, San Jose, San Diego and East County are all well along in demonstrating a new sense of what normal should be into the future.
The most immediate issue is updated deployment plans. I read in ThePress on Tuesday that if the tax measure failed then four stations would close – absolutely – as a matter of fact, not opinion. As I expected, this newspaper was misrepresenting “possibility” as “fact” in what can only be described as a last minute scare tactic and attempt at fear mongering. That’s a shame because such actions eat away at the integrity of ThePress.
So now we read that this has not yet been decided. Putting aside the etch-e-sketch nature of the reporting, shouldn't consideration be given to four stations in which one of the stations is staffed with three personnel and the other three stations staffed with two? The 3-man station might be rotated depending to season or day of week to put the additional asset (possible a paramedic) in the optimal location based on anticipated call volumes.
Many stations throughout the country are staffed with two firefighters. Heck, some are staffed with a single person.
We have seen that the vast majority of calls are medical, not fire. Surely the four station model will mean faster response time for these medical emergencies than the three station models.
The push to reduce the number of stations, and hence the overall speed at which emergency services (particularly basic life support “BLS”) can be deployed seems to be more about the Union’s desire to give the appearance of less coverage than to serve the public as well as possible with limited resources.
I don’t know what the optimal deployment is, but I do believe that if we rely on the Union to make this decision their long-term political goals will overshadow public safety and that is wrong. Again, the district should be managed by management, not labor.
You may want to look at the ECCFPD Board agenda, there is a third option to the straight three or four station model, it's a four station hybrid with 3sta@2 and 1sta@3. The Cheif would have the operational flexability to determine where the three man engine would be located, possibly by season or call volumes and type of calls.
The district's website doesn't have a link for te full acket, and the agenda itself is silent on that option.
Can you get tat posted to the district's website or post a link to it here?
If indeed you are correct and that s going to be discussed then I applaud the district for opening up to all possibilities - at least to consider.
I also like the idea of saving fire fighter jobs, assuming the deployment can be managed for the best for our district.
Here is the text from the staff report, working on getting it posted on the district site.
Four-Station Hybrid Model – consists of two stations in Brentwood, and one station each in Discovery Bay and Oakley. Three of the four stations would be staffed with two personnel, consisting of a Fire Captain and Engineer. The fourth station would be staffed with three personnel; consisting of a Fire Captain, Engineer, and Firefighter. It is anticipated that this additional staffing could rotate between Brentwood, Oakley and Discovery Bay but ultimately would be based upon operational needs. The staffing costs associated with the Four-Station Hybrid Model are increased by three personnel from the Four-Station Model. This option requires additional day-to-day expenditures associated with an additional station plus the additional 3 personnel. A four station hybrid model would require 27 fire personnel compared to the current 43 FTE’s.
Whatever is decided regarding deployment, I hope your board will do what is best for the community and not defer to union pressure. Personally, the hybrid 4x2.3 solution seems to make sense given the overwhelming bls call volume.
Supervisors,
It is decision time. Next Monday you all have a great opportunity to show your support for the people you serve or you can decide to continue to dodge a long-running critical failure. I am referring to the ECCFPD and the financial plight it has endured since its inception. Next Monday's board meeting is critical to set the tone for how this district will provide service and how they will cure (or not) their terrible financial situation.
Simply appointing this board did not relive you of your public safety duty to your constituents. Now, especially considering the pounding Measure S took, it is the time to step-up and provide leadership to this beleaguered board and district. There is a set of solutions that can have great positive impact but they are largely county based. You need to step in and make something happen or else the people of this county will suffer and the employees of all the county fire departments will never have job stability.
Below is a list of suggestions to save county fire/EMS that was published in a local paper. I do not consider the list all inclusive or absolute but is wide ranging and it does focus on the fundamental issues that have caused the financial chaos that is impacting almost every fire department in this county. Simply stated, most are paid too much and their benefit packages are unsustainable. Did you know a firefighter in Antioch is paid about the same as one in NYC and the one in Antioch gets a better pension deal?
This week, as you know, was huge in bringing forward nation wide what people think of public sector union pensions and the need for major reform. SJ and SD appear now to be ground zero for what will undoubtedly be a national trend. You cannot deny this is happening and you cannot deny that right here in CCC the need to get on-board is as great as anywhere.
This county needs a brand NEW, from the ground up, fire/EMS entity. You can make that happen or you can hide from the issue and allow the financial dysfunction to continue which will lead to significant public safety problems. It is your choice. Any of you that cover any part of the ECCFPD area need to show up on Monday evening and show your support for a major set of changes that ultimately will bring financial and job security to fire/EMS in this county.
And you know darn well what is going to happen to your November quest for more Con Fire tax money. Don't even waste your time or the public's money. Con Fire is already paid 20% over the national (metro) average and wallowing in pension debt. The people of this county do live on the same planet as the voters in SD and SJ.....Don't bother to pursue any more fire tax money until you fundamentally fix the financial flaws...including wages. Negotiated pension 'reform' with the unions is only window dressing and will not create true financial sustainability. You must go deep and wide ranging with the solutions. The solution package must address wages ( & pension) as well as operational issues...the solutions will not be popular with the union, you must be prepared to fight and win for the best interests of the public who employ you.
The county (you all) must recognize and not hide from the fact that the vast majority of fire calls are EMS (BLS) and you must do your share and not just say we have no obligations to fire departments. I strongly suggest you consider direct interim support for ECCFPD as part of an overall plan to reach stability and sustainability. Just think of the political capital this would earn all of you.
For your reading pleasure...... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/us/politics/san-diego-and-san-jose-pass-pension-cuts.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120607
There are many fire/EMS solutions, both permeant and interim, that you all can bring forward. Simply ignoring this problem or tossing out empty lip-service never worked before and is truly not an option now....you must act. Failure to act, at this critical juncture, will cause you to be seen as a total failure and in the special interest bag.
Sorry for the blunt language but now the voters have spoken and too may years have passed with no meaningful action from you all.
Scraping every last one of them and replacing them with private sector providers is the answer.