Home CONFIRE CONFIRE Votes to Reduce Aid to Neighboring Fire Districts

CONFIRE Votes to Reduce Aid to Neighboring Fire Districts

by ECT

Picture 195

Contra Costa County Fire Protection District is moving forward with a plan that reduces fire services to the District and surrounding districts  in order to reduce and manage the service demand of the fire District.

The framework of the plan deals with Auto Aid. When an outside district is in request of aid, the District will now only allow two (2) units to automatic aid per jurisdiction, and a maximum of for (4) District-wide. When a total of 4 units have been committed to automatic aid the Contra Costa Regional Fire Communications Center (CCRFCC) shall notify the Duty Chief. The Duty Chief will approve or deny any additional “mutual aid” requests.

Trucks/Quints will not be sent to East Contra Costa County Fire (ECC) for automatic aid since they cannot provide a like resource in return. The on-duty Battalion 8 Duty Chief shall approve or deny a mutual aid request from ECC for a Truck/Quint.

“This proposal is a good outline for a bad situation,” stated Supervisor Karen Mitchoff.

East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Fire Chief Hugh Henderson spoke at the meeting urging the Board to consider that both he and Chief Louder worked on an aid agreement for the past year.

“When Auto Aid changed, we made it so Auto Aid was just for emergencies. With some changes, we have concerns as aid is currently for like resources,” said Henderson.

He also reminded the Board that prior to the July 1 incident in Brentwood, there was a fire in Antioch off Lone Tree Way where we sent 4-of-5 ECCFPD engines to assist for a good hour.

“Being in far East County, we don’t have the resources close by coming from the East and south,” explained Henderson. “Also, we are in a situation where we don’t know what’s going on with the rest of the county and what aid is available or not which puts us being the eight ball. It also creates a big hole for dispatch center having to make split decisions.”

Supervisor Mary Piepho requested an explanation on the cap of Auto Aid versus Mutual Aid. It was shared that this new policy puts a “hard cap” on Auto Aid (closest resource) and Mutual Aid (requires approval).

Vince Wells, President of the United Professional Firefighters of Contra Costa County, Local 1230, stated that it’s unfortunate it has come to these types of talks.

“We have always worked well with our neighbors but unfortunately Contra Costa County doesn’t have the resources so we can no longer cover outside our boundaries. It’s unfortunate it’s come to this. The only thing that will solve this is revenue,” said Wells. “This can’t be fixed by changing the model, we need boots on the ground to service the calls.

He closed his comments by respectfully asking the Board of Supervisors to re-open Station 87 until the Fitch Report is complete and until after fire season was over. He also urged the Board to wait until the Fitch Report is completed before making decision.

Supervisor John Gioia stated this is a “property tax district” and that revenue is set to property tax. He explained that in 2014/2015, expenditures surpass revenue by $10 million while this issue doesn’t take into consideration the SAFER Grant.

“We can only collect so much,” said Gioia. “If we break the law by going into the General Fund; we have no General Fund money to cut the gap because it reduces other county services. We potentially will go back to the ballot in 2016”.

Supervisor Mitchoff asked for a clarification on what it would cost to keep the Station 87 open to comply with Mr. Wells request. She stated she went to the County Assessor.

“Either we pay now, or we pay later according to the County Assessor. We will make up cut and at a great rate in the future. I stand by our vote to close the station,” said Mitchoff.

Supervisor Candace Andersen asked for further clarification on costs where it was shared that to keep a station open, it’s roughly $2 million per year so for a quarter of the year, the District was looking at $500k.

Chief Louder requested that the Board not sit idle until 2016 as Supervisor Gioia stated they would wait until 2016 for a second revenue enhancement. He stated the number of stations open now are critical and cannot drop below and that its time to find a solution.

The Board voted 5-0 to authorizing the Fire Chief to continue implementation of the Service Reduction and Fire Station Closure Plan due to reductions required in the FY-2013/2014 Budget

Here is a look in full at what yesterday’s Board Action now implements:

Due to decreasing revenues and increasing benefit costs, the District continues to face severe fiscal challenges. The actions to de-staff seven (7) functional units and close five (5) fire stations (effective July 8th) will result in significantly reduced resources to protect and serve the community.

Due to these reductions, the District has no option but to further reduce direct service delivery levels to the community and our response partners. The following operational changes are recommended to reduce and manage the service demands on the Fire District:

  • Commit a maximum of two (2) units to automatic aid per jurisdiction, and a maximum of four (4) District-wide. Station coverage outside of our jurisdiction counts as a unit. When a total of 4 units have been committed to automatic aid the Contra Costa Regional Fire Communications Center (CCRFCC) shall notify the Duty Chief. The Duty Chief will approve or deny any additional “mutual aid” requests.
  • Trucks/Quints will not be sent to East Contra Costa County Fire (ECC) for automatic aid since they cannot provide a like resource in return. The on-duty Battalion 8 Duty Chief shall approve or deny a mutual aid request from ECC for a Truck/Quint.
  • Per previous decisions, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) shall not provide station coverage to East Contra Costa County Fire, Pinole Fire, or Rodeo/Hercules Fire.
  • Dozer-220 and Safety Officer (Training-10) will be removed from responses outside of our jurisdiction.
  • Low priority (Alpha) emergency medical (EMS) calls, life assists, public service calls, etc. will be placed in a queue to prevent long responses out of the first-due area by neighboring companies. There was discussion about placing “Bravo” level EMS calls in queue as well; however, the Medical Director expressed concern about maintaining a timely response for these “transitional” incidents.
  • The Fire District is working with the County EMS Agency and American Medical Response (AMR) to implement technical solutions that will allow both response entities to monitor the location and availability of resources. If AMR is in close proximity to an “Alpha or Bravo” (non-life threatening) incident, then Fire resources will not respond. Conversely, if AMR is not in close proximity, Fire will respond to provide patient care until the arrival of AMR. Both entities will continue to respond to the acute life threatening emergencies.
  • The Medical Director is also working closely with facilities that have trained medical staff on-site to reduce/eliminate emergency responses that can be addressed by the staff. Additionally, Dr. Barger is working to educate staff at other facilities (e.g., shelters) regarding when it is appropriate to utilize 911 and when other options should be utilized.
  • The Fire District has also implemented a number of operational and support changes that do not require authorization by the Board of Directors including:
  • On multi-unit dispatches, units responding from outside of their “first-due area” or when anticipating extended response times, are to announce where they are responding from. This will enable the first arriving officer to develop a plan based on this information.
  • When a closer engine company is “passed over” in order to provide a second truck company on required responses; that closer engine company shall be added to the dispatch.
  • Establish a short-term (several hours) personnel recall list to staff units when we experience significant drawdown of resources.
  • Create a matrix for the Communications Center that changes the response algorithms when the District reaches specific drawdown levels. As an example, typical five-unit responses would be reduced to three units and low priority calls would be placed on a pending list for service.
  • A maximum of three (3) units that can be out of service at any given time for routine functions, e.g., training, scheduled apparatus maintenance, etc.
  • Reduce response to fire alarms in commercial buildings (not residential) to one unit during normal business hours (8am-5pm, Monday thru Friday).
  • Decentralize support functions (e.g., training, apparatus repairs, etc.) to the fullest extent possible to keep units in their first-due areas and available for response.

Staff Report:

http://64.166.146.155/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=ALL&get_month=7&get_year=2013&dsp=agm&seq=14930&rev=0&ag=301&ln=28772&nseq=&nrev=&pseq=14838&prev=0#ReturnTo28772

OPINION: Impact on East County

In East County, this latest CONFIRE policy will have the largest impact as we currently are working off a SAFER Grant that expires in November of 2014. The SAFER Grant allowed East County Fire Protection District to re-open two of its closed stations bringing the service model back to a five-station model. Unless a voter approved revenue measure passes between now and 2014, the District is likely going to be reduced back to a three-station model–worse case scenario, either a two-station model or two-man crews.

Just to show you how limited available resources may affect East County going forward, here is a look at a couple recent fires in 2013 where ConFire has provided additional resources to some larger incidents on top of our Engines already on scene.

  • Brentwood (July 1): 5 Engines were provided by ConFire to assist on a 250 acre vegetation fire
  • Discovery Bay (April 24):  6 Engines were provided by ConFire to assist on one home destroyed and another damaged.
  • Bethel Island (March 20): 5 Engines were provided by ConFire to assist on two homes destroyed and another damaged

Needless to say, ECCFPD will feel the pain as some of the other incidents have had 2-3 engines provided to assist. ConFire has also assisted on many medicals when our engines were tied up on other minor incidents.

Votes have consequences and with yesterdays ConFires action it now creates huge problems for all of Contra Costa County’s neighboring fire districts and emergency personnel who serve within the County.

For East County’s sake, lets hope yesterdays action creates a sense of urgency not yet seen by our Board of Directors in finding a long-term solution as they are already behind in the game.

Burk Byline
By Michael Burkholder

You may also like

16 comments

Buy a Clue Jul 10, 2013 - 10:21 am

It’s all a bluff. They aren’t really going to close stations. Just ask K. Hunt of the taxpayers group.

Errr, wait. She’s gone. Moved to North Carolina according to her FB page.

Oh well, looks like you got led off a cliff by a short timer who wasn’t going to suffer the consequences.

Rob Saw Jul 10, 2013 - 10:59 am

Voters are getting what they asked for. When you have a property tax District as Gioia states, you are going to lose revenue just as quick as you gain it but remember the service level does not change.

Frank Roth Jul 10, 2013 - 1:18 pm

Waiing until 2016 for another try at a tax is a director not doing his job. It’s also putting a lot of residents in danger. Hope he clarifies that statement or vote him out of office.

B-Wood Jul 10, 2013 - 1:56 pm

I hope the general public realizes that they were dealt a losing hand by the likes of Kris Hunt (former CCtax and former Contra costa resident), Dan Borenstein (CCtimes/Editorial board) and Dave Roberts (nobody). These 3 individuals have been quiet (absent) ever since they protested revenue increases telling us these were only “scare tactics”.

Then they upped the “anti” with even more rhetoric;

“They aren’t really not going to close fire stations, Surely this won’t impact mutual and automatic aid. There is a better way to deliver emergency service. Firefighters should not be responding to medical calls. It’s not about revenue its about spending. This this is all about pension reform for those overpaid firefighters and union thugs.” “….a NO vote will force the department to make changes.”

Well it did. Is anyone really happy with these new “changes”? Anyone see their taxes go down? Anyone think we have adequate emergency services now? Anyone feel better that their no vote put us all at risk? Does anyone really feel safer?

If you answered NO to any of the above questions you can thank the three stooges that sold you a bill of goods based on bad information, lack of judgment & qualifications.

We showed us.

In one of the largest economic downturns in history, it was pretty easy for these 3 to coax voters into rejecting any tax increase. They were able to overpower the reality that our emergency services were never fully funded in the first place. This played right into the hand of an already frustrated electorate. A disaster in the making which has now almost played out. “Almost” being the key word. Next we can expect even more closed stations (already planned), loss of grant money when the SAFER grants expire, loss of more firefighter positions, further reductions in automatic & mutual aid, longer response times and increasing insurance premiums.
So there you have it, the next round of so called “scare tactics”. Does anyone at this point think they are just scare tactics and won’t happen? If so then history will surely repeat itself.

Let’s hope we are all a little more educated next time around. (The word on the street is both districts will be seeking another ballot measure in the future). Let’s hope next time we don’t fall for the song and dance of a select few with their own special interests-none of which includes our safety and well being.

Medium Rare in East County Jul 10, 2013 - 8:50 pm

B-Wood
July 10, 2013 • 1:56 pm
.
Is anyone really happy with these new “changes”? I’m not…
Anyone see their taxes go down? Yes, but not because of the miniscule tax I’d have had to pay if Measure S had passed…
Anyone think we have adequate emergency services now? I don’t…
Anyone feel better that their no vote put us all at risk? My vote didn’t put anyone at risk, unless voting for the tax to keep our fire services as they were put us at risk…
Does anyone really feel safer? I don’t feel safer, nor am I worried dramatically. Am I worried my insurance rates will go up? Yes. Do I worry about less services, not yet, but I’m close to worried… of course my house hasn’t caught on fire yet.

If you answered NO to any of the above questions you can thank the three stooges that sold you a bill of goods based on bad information, lack of judgment & qualifications. I think there was a lot more blame to spread around then just to those three…

Does anyone at this point think they are just scare tactics and won’t happen? I don’t believe them to be scare tactics, nor do I feel that either side is being completely rational in discussions or educating of those who need more information to make good decision.

I’ve seen people ask questions here regarding this issue, only to get lambasted and torn apart by the know-it-alls with nothing but vehemence, anger, and rude commentary rebutted back. Rather than answer a question, a retort of “that’s been covered before” or some derogatory remark made about their intelligence or sincerity is proffered up instead of a thoughtful response. That is the biggest problem with this issue and this news blog, too much nastiness turning people off to learning and maybe voting to fix this..

So, what are the solutions to getting our services in East County back on track? What can be done to fix the problem? In order to advocate a position en masse, we all need to be on the same page… we are conquered because we are divided.

Renee Jul 11, 2013 - 9:03 am

The only way anyone will be able to get any of the existing services back is by educating the general public about the cost of day to day operations of the fire district. And I do not mean how much firefighters are costing. I mean flue cost, vehicle maintenance cost, up keep of equipment on the trucks (power pack, hand tools, SCBA, power tools, ladders, ect.) Let’s not forget training cost and why the department has to pay this price. Once you start looking at these numbers, you realize why ever fire district is struggling.

Random Guy Jul 11, 2013 - 8:25 pm

Not every fire district is “struggling”. Most post-Prop-13 districts, like ECC, have a much lower return on property tax, in percentages, than older districts. Districts like Woodside and San Ramon have not only a higher property valuation, but receive a larger portion of property tax revenue. Also, since ECC doesn’t get funding from sales tax, that was greatly impacted by the Redevelopment Agencies, the stream of funding can be very narrow. Lastly, Redevelopment Agencies usually by-passed or deferred property tax payments to lure businesses for sales tax revenue in those cities. I totally agree about educating the public, but they to need to know how a district works compared to a city department.

B-Wood Jul 11, 2013 - 1:24 pm

Medium Rare,

Ok, I’ll bite. In response to your reply to my comments above, you may wish to consider the following;

When I asked if anyone has seen their taxes go down, I should have been more specific, as the question was twofold. When the housing market crashed so did property tax revenues. It has been stated that this is where the fire district’s get their operating revenue. So, if your taxes went down, then you are not paying as much for the service you receive, which is the fundamental root of this issue. The flip side of this is that you have probably been receiving annual form letters from the Assessor (Gus Kramer) that make it look like your annual assessments are continuing to drop. You might want to look closer. The wording insinuates one thing, but if you look carefully you may see that your assessment is up from the prior year. This has been going on for a few years now.

I asked if anyone felt better by their No vote putting us at risk. You indicated that you voted Yes, so I am not quite sure why even responded. My question wasn’t directed to those that voted yes.

I asked if anyone felt safer. While you stated you don’t feel safer, you did state that you were not worried (dramatically). That is also problematic. You most likely don’t feel worried because you are not anticipating the personal necessity of emergency services. The fact is, most people don’t. Accidents always happen to the “other guy” right? Wrong. Statistically, you or someone in your family will need some form of emergency service at some point in time. It’s not if, it is when. Emergency rooms are filled with those that started their day never expecting to go to the hospital. I can’t state it any clearer. Accidents happen to everyone-they are not planned events.

You stated that neither “side” is being completely rational in discussions or education, but you failed to elaborate. Personally, I have been watching this debate for a few years now and I disagree with your assertation. The fire district, EMS and even the county have made their points it very clear. The reality is they cannot make people listen. They cannot force education on citizens. We the citizens have a responsibility to educate ourselves. The “other side” chose to prey on the citizens by posting false claims such as labeling truths as “scare tactics” and most often substituting fearmongering (opinion) for facts. They used many known tactics which included asking the same questions over and over, hoping to get a different answer. I believe this has frustrated you as well as many people who now refuse to answer the same questions or debate what is already been debated. Just like a parent would get frustrated when a child asks the same question over and over, hoping to break the parent down. It never ends well. So yes, it’s been covered before, over and over and over. You and others have a RESPONSIBLITY to do your own homework. Maybe pick up a phone, call the fire directors, city council or county supervisors or attend a fire meeting…. Heck, walk down to a local firehouse (provided you can find one that is open) and ask the firefighters. If you are going to seek your answers on a blog from people that have no accountability, then you are probably not going to like what you hear.

The three people I pointed out (Kris Hunt, Borenstein and Roberts) were the responsible ones for misleading the public. They were the ones who wrote the ballot argument and editorials against the measure. You sure you don’t want to hold them primarily responsible? I failed to see anyone else carrying on the way that trio did. Who else would you blame? I would hate to be in their shoes as this situation continues to degrade. One of them (Hunt) has already packed her bags, resigned her post and left the state.

The solution? IMHO, it is all about revenue. Our fire departments all operate on property tax dollars which were frozen in time by Prop. 13. Since there are no additional revenue streams and the fire departments are like insurance (they do not generate funds), then the only way to fix the shortfall is to properly fund it. The issue remains. They have been doing more with less and now have hit the breaking point which also coincided with a huge downturn in the economy. The perfect storm if you will. As complex as this may seem the solution is actually simple; Fund emergency services or do without.

I’m not here to debate you. I have the facts and I’ve done my homework. Hopefully, what I have learned will assist you. I do agree that we all need to be on the same page-unfortunately there are those that have no intention of being on the “same page”. It is known as purposeful ignorance and they have tried their best to play it well.

Medium Rare in East County Jul 12, 2013 - 4:17 pm

Thanks B, appreciate your time very much. I’m very much on your side, and have also watched this for a few years now, but not with the fervor and dedication that some have. So, there will be a lot of people with questions in the future, and if people such as yourself provide the answers as they come up, it will help. I’d recommend to Burke that maybe he turn this portion of his site into more of a forum, with advanced edit features and indexing of posting such that the answers can be quickly pointed to via link. Kind of like what CALGUNS does. Anyway, I’m trying to learn more about our specific issues. Honestly, even with an electorate as angry and uninformed as ours is these days, I never thought for a second that Measure S would fail. Anyway, thanks again, I am listening.

Barbara DuMont Jul 10, 2013 - 5:50 pm

I have been in Oregon for a few days and just read this. (where they have a volunteer fire dept AND a volunteer ambulance service. Listened to dispatch calling for people to respond for a medical and a grass fire at the same time was eye opening.)

Trucks/Quints will not be sent to East Contra Costa County Fire (ECC) for automatic aid since they cannot provide a like resource in return. The on-duty Battalion 8 Duty Chief shall approve or deny a mutual aid request from ECC for a Truck/Quint

What does this mean to the people living in the 3 and 4 story low income apartments on Carol Lane? I mean when the fact that our fire district doesn’t have the equipment to fight a fire on the top floor was pointed out to the Oakley City Council, they responded that with the mutual aid pact with ConFire, it didn’t matter. Well, does it matter now????????

ECVsbrother Jul 10, 2013 - 9:54 pm

Maybe the cities should have thought about that when they approved the multi story buildings.
I bet that unless the quints are actually already in use they will respond anywhere needed. These continued threats from the county to public safety are meant for you to pay more when they ask so they can pay the benefits they couldn’t afford in the first place. Read between the lines when they say due to reduced revenue and increased benefit costs. The tax revenue is actually increasing by over three percent and slated to rise more. Benefit costs should be a defined cost unless some are padding their pensions. Someone is playing the public for more cash to cough up. I hope it does not take a death to fix the problem. They do that when a road is not safe too. They wait until someone dies or they get sued to fix it. Kind of sad but that’s the government.

Buy a Clue Jul 10, 2013 - 11:36 pm

Sued to fix it?

That’s hilarious. So you’re going to sue the county because you said you wouldn’t pay more to support an underfunded fire district. But you still expect them to give you the service for free or something?

ECVsbrother Jul 11, 2013 - 7:10 pm

What are you smoking clueless? Read what was printed not what’s in your little mind.
There are several examples of the county getting sued. Vasco road is a good example after all those people died in crashes they widened that area. Then when the fire truck was involved in the fatal crash of a woman at Camino Diablo they redid that entire intersection. Go back and smoke another one clueless.

Buy a Clue Jul 11, 2013 - 10:27 pm

I’ll take that as you can’t answer the question.

Were you aware your fire district is governed by a local board and not the county? You sound like a guy who would burn himself on McDonald’s coffee and try to sue Burger King.

Buy a Clue. It’s not just an alias.

ECV Jul 12, 2013 - 10:14 am

Buy a Clue,

Thanks for giving the retarded clown posing as My Brother an additional opportunity to show how truly stupid he is. I know there are some on this board that don’t like name calling, but at some point you just have to call a spade a spade. The icing on the crap cake is that the one responsible for making ECVs Brother look downright stupid is himself! It’s a riot. Can you even fathom being that stupid? OMG, no wonder he has such a hard time with life, people and politics! Bawahahahahahaaaaaaa!

He can’t buy a break or a clue…..I doubt if he has two nickels to rub together!

Medium Rare in East County Jul 12, 2013 - 4:24 pm

Still building those bridges I see. I know I know…
I am curious though, if you’re at a party or some social gathering and you have a disagreement with someone on a subject of political nature, do you break out with the “stupid” and assumptions of his fiscal worth? Because if you do, I’d wager you don’t do it more than once. Again, I’d challenge you to tear peoples opinions apart with facts, rather than the derogatory commentary. Seems plausible, but I know it’s a first reaction for some people rather than have an honest debate.

Comments are closed.