I am personally 50-50 on whether or not the District should accept the $7.8 million in federal grants because of the circumstances it forces onto the district two-years from now. The grant helps in the short term, but it still does not solve the revenue problem which will continue to plague the District when the money runs out.
Simply put, it kicks this problem down the road and will force much larger cuts a few years from now. If you thought the cuts in July were bad, just wait until the money runs out. With that said, I understand we need as many firefighters as possible to protect us.
ECCFPD was forced to lay off 15 firefighters and close three stations July 1 after voters rejected a 10-year parcel tax measure that would have kept it afloat. Two years earlier, it closed two additional stations.
I wanted to put out this poll question to my readers to get a feel for what the public wants as this appears to be a damned if you do damned if you don’t situation.
[polldaddy poll=6486777]
Ultimately, the ECCFPD Board has a very difficult decision to make as many of them will be appointing new replacements in the coming months. Their replacements, two years from now, will have to make these cuts. Meanwhile, if the Board showed real guts and said no, the public will scold them!
As Bob Mankin informed me, CONFIRE got one of these last year. The issues are explained if you dig for them and it should be noted that CONFIRE has not heavily used that money to this point for the very concerns within the grant.
This is not a simple “yes” or “no” vote, there are a lot of consequences each way at the expense of our current firefighters who will be left unprotected with the acceptance of this grant.
31 comments
This is way to early for this.
Mike, so we probably need a little more information, but would these new hires fall under the old benefits package? I thought you mentioned that a new one was agreed upon. If that is the case, would they fall under the new agreement? So in fact they would cost less then the current employees. I’m hoping that the economy kicks into gear soon, so that would mean that there will be a little more revenue in two years, so possibly there would be no or fewer cuts two years from now.
I do not know the answer. The new tier may be agreed upon, but still needs final approval from lawmakers and who knows when that happens.
Like I said, I am 50-50 on it. I wanted to throw this question out there for others to give their opinion.
I think any new tiered system depends on the language in the FD employee’s MOU as far as coming back off of a lay-off. I doubt that they were able to re-negotiate their contract so soon at this point, but anything is possible.
No they should not accept it. It would inflate service and creates a train wreck later.
Tough call, firefighters need help and the Bethel Island and Knightsen calls have not had the best response times. What do you tell those folks by voting no? Give them their help! This is their chance.
WAY to early, let’s get facts first. One life saved, one injury prevented to a firefifhter or ALL firefighters came home safe after their shift, then yes even if only for two years then it was worth accepting.
If it saves just 1 life and puts firefighters back to work for 2 years then its worth it. Accept it!
Since the meeting is in Oakley, I would hope the ECCFPD records this meeting because two years from now, this meeting will need to be replayed to residents for all the Monday Morning Quarterbacking that will be done over this decision.
Put firefighters back to work and protect East County so HELL YES. This is simple, come on Mike, it’s not that complicated as you are making it. I get the impression you are trying to make people vote against the acceptance of this grant. Shame on you!
I am honestly torn, I want to say “no”, but watching these guys since July 1 I know they need help and I know they are putting themselves in great risk by responding to the fire calls and they can’t be everywhere in this new model. The revenue problem is not the firefighters fault. The guys are busting their ass each day and deserve full staffing levels.
The point of the post and poll is to point out this is not a simple “yes” or “no” vote, the vote has consequences both ways and by accepting the Grant, the District is then responsible to comply with its requirements.
In the long run, its throwing money at a problem and doesn’t fix it.
Fair enough Mike, I know you are trying to play fair, but you also ignored the benefits as much as you promoted the negatives. I know you support the firefighters, this decision sucks for the Board and the District.
It’s too bad that the media failed to mention the possibility of a $7.8 million grant during the Measure S campaign. Perhaps fire district officials and the firefighters union didn’t want anyone to know about this possibility when they were scaring us to death in an effort to squeeze $2,200 out of our pockets.
But Henderson is right – the problem of out-of-control retirement expenses remains. This gives the district two years to rein it in and get the district back on sound fiscal footing. But I’m not holding my breath.
Get out of here you troll!
They did mention it – they also mentioned that it wasn’t a guaranteed deal. The Brentwood Press wrote an article about it shortly after Measure S failed that East County was denied their application. The Press and other newspapers also included this grant information in their articles before Measure S failed. I also believe that is was discussed during the Fire Board meetings. Nice try though! But if you were Dave’s brother – ya kinda would of known that!
I could swear the Chief has mentioned at most of the meetings they were applying for grants and has been given updates to each of the applications they submitted.
Burk – I remember at two of the board meetings (April and May) where Chief Henderson gave an update that they applied and were waiting to hear on the status of the application.
I didn’t google the meeting minutes to see if it might be in there.
How you don’t accept Federal money is beyond me. Get the firefighters back to work!
For those saying yes for naive reasons, read the details. This could actually cost the district money if it doesn’t perform. What do you say to the firefighters with seniority two years from now who will be laid off because of the requirements of the grant?
I can appreciate the support you all are giving, but this is a can of worms ECCFPD does not need. I urge the Board to vote no!
Absolutely NOT! No way should the Federal Government dollars be used on a District that can’t even fund itself or cut further. Why should voters ever support any tax increase again when their was money all along? Ooops. The firefighters are not to blame, its the Board and the Chief for not being transparent.
Jill, if they say no, they do not have a good reason for saying no. It’s about saving lives, not worrying about two years from now.
For those of you who are encouraging a “yes”, you clearly do not understand what the grant is or is required. Check out what happened in WA.
http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/mar/28/fire-station-grant-stirs-concerns/
And in MI
http://www.firegrantshelp.com/news/1302143-Mich-city-turns-down-8M-SAFER-grant/
Just because ECCFPD may reject it, it means the money will go to another community. Nothing is saved by saying no.
Soon after the ECCFPD board was formed I stood before them and talked about this exact federal grant money and this very issue; I pointed out specifically how SJ had pro actively mitigated the potential ramifications, I even provided a written explanation. But I was not surprised as I watched Oakley board member pat anderson roll her eyes and look away as I spoke. That was the kind of response then and now that a request for forward thinking gets from this board.
Even without mitigation the fed money should, in my opinion, be gladly taken and used wisely as an operating bridge to get to the point of launching a NEW leveraged fire/ems entity in this county. The new entity will largely be able to fund it self if it adopts a tiered comp plan based on ECCFPD’s current pay scale and if it adopts other benefit reforms.
It is my opinion that anyone not for using this Fed money to quickly improve public safety is nothing more than a shill for the union. Of course the union doesn’t like this fed money, they are not really about bottom line public safety….they are all about maximum dollars in their pockets at whatever cost to the public. They want a local tax increase and they want to control how it is used. They want more money out of local pockets and more money in their pockets. People like vince the local union boss and the politicos he financially supports are going to have to wake up to reality and understand the outlook for funding public services has changed in a big way.
So hey pat anderson and the rest of your fire board who has engaged in no forward thinking….how about you reach out to the BOS and establish a working group to develop a plan to create a NEW fire/ems entity that meets today’s reality and is built from the ground up to function within the means available. I guarantee no job in this new ‘correctly’ paid FD will go unfilled.
To be clear, this fed money will not solve the fire department funding issues in this county and neither would have the failed measure s and neither will the con fire tax measure that is going to to fail. The solution is the new entity that is leveraged and pays a proper wage with a realistic benefit program.
Now there is two years to get this done….plenty of time for competent people to do so unless the union obstructs and unless the in-the-union-bag politicos continue their a la pat anderson head in the sand behavior.
jb
Are you aware that San Jose did take the money and still laid people off? I wouldn’t use that city as an example for anything other than how not to do things.
Now that we have heard from some of the people, can’t wait to see what the Taxpayers Assn says. Hope its in the Times, cat box needs a new liner.
Exactly my point….SJ recognized that this fed $$ would not fix their really bad problems but it would help on an interim basis, so they worked with FEMA to eliminate the down side to things getting worse and having to employ other cost saving measures. SJ took the money not facing a pay back risk. They were smart and pro active. pat anderson et al were dumb and lazy.
But worst case what will happen…..will home land security send some folks over from the airport to repo the fire trucks. come on people get a clue. Anyone (except the union people) who cry about failed measure s but don’t want to jump on this fed money are not being logical ….in my opinion.
Union won’t have anything to do with it. At some point you have to run that plan of yours up a flagpole and before the voters for approval. If I live in Pleasant Hill, don’t be surprised when I give you the figurative middle finger on the idea of subsidizing your underfunded per capita district in east county. Why should I dice up my fire department for your benefit? You pay half what I do and don’t waste your time with that everyone pays 1% junk. Doesn’t wash.
I wish that I could type what I am really thinking but I am just to damn polite.
Jeff B and others – I encourage you to research the performance requirements and other information regarding the SAFER grant. I think you will find after combing through the information that there are definite advantages and disadvantages when it comes to ECCFPD accepting this grant award. I just hope that the fire district manages the grant correctly so that additional monies aren’t wasted as a result – which is a very real possibility. In the best case scenario, this grant only provides 100% funding for two years, after which time the responsibility falls upon the fire district again. This grant does not address, nor does it correct, the funding deficiencies and problems this fire district faces.
Here is a link to the FEMA website where you can find the information I was referring to – http://www.fema.gov/staffing-adequate-fire-emergency-response-grants. I encourage you all to take a look.
So, I went to the FEMA website. I looked, but the video I saw was about volunteer departments. I did not see anything about the current grant. Where is the info about this? What are the problems?
Right this minute I am hoping that the grant will enable the B.I. station to re-open. Even if it only lasts for two years, this will be a blessing. I think people got a real scare when the station closed. Next time a tax measure is put on the ballot it might pass. Remember, the majority of voters on the Island voted yes, though not enough to overcome all the no votes in the total ECCFPD.
If they don’t accept this money, they lose my support.
Comments are closed.