The most recent voice of dissent came from our local firefighters union in the form of a letter from union president Tony Perez (“Tracy firefighters respond to EMS fee,” March 20.) The firefighters union is clearly the best-informed and most credible source to voice opposition to the program to date.
After reading Mr. Perez’s comments, I do not completely understand why the union opposes the program or, perhaps more importantly, whether the union is calling on the council to reconsider the plan altogether. If that is the case, I do not see any suggestions for an alternative plan.
If the union opposition to the program is based on the distasteful proposition of imposing a new fee or tax on the public during difficult economic times, I couldn’t agree more. The question has been asked: “When did the $300 fee with a $48 membership option become a good idea?”
I would argue that the fee was never a “good” idea, but it is far better than the alternative of reducing services in this valuable area. In my opinion, the $48 membership option made it a viable idea — I would not support a raw fee without a means of making the cost easier to bear. Facts behind the fee
When discussing EMS fees, there are some facts that must be considered.
The current level of fire department-provided EMS service evolved from a time when property values were up and employment was stable. At that time, the city enjoyed a reliable flow of property and sales tax revenues on which it runs services, including public safety.
The Tracy Fire Department is part of a consolidated fire district of seven stations, which serve more than 200 square miles and 100,000 people. The district includes three major highways, and its units respond to freeway accidents and emergencies. Ambulance service is contracted and consists of only two or three units on duty. Without firefighter-paramedics, that would mean only two or three advanced life support professionals are available to serve the public at any given time. With firefighters, the number goes to about eight or nine.
It was recognized years ago that the firefighter-paramedics were a great idea. Then, the revenues existed to pay for the enhanced service, and it represented a potential of saving lives in the community. I believe that was a sound decision.
Now, the situation has changed. Property values have dropped, and unemployment and the recession have limited consumer spending. Property and sales tax revenues to the city have decreased significantly — 26 percent in the past three years.
In response, the city embarked on a mission to cut costs. In the past four years, more than 90 staff positions have been eliminated, 40 in the past year alone. Every city employee who was spared being laid off has seen or will see some form of pay cut. There have been significant cuts in discretionary spending in all departments and reduced service levels where possible.
About $7.5 million has been cut from the upcoming budget, but there is still a need to spend about $5.5 million from the city’s fiscal reserve. There is no reason to expect the tax revenue situation will improve soon, potentially resulting in an even larger gap in the future.
The most common criticism I have received regarding the EMS fees is that folks feel they already pay taxes to support the fire department. True.
But it is also true that, as stated, those taxes have decreased. Many residents who purchased homes during the housing boom are now seeing those homes reassessed and taxed at significantly lower rates. In spite of that, the cost of the enhanced emergency medical service remains.
The council was faced with a simple but not easy decision: Cut the service provided back to basic levels or find a way to generate revenue to help make up for the lost funds. The choice was to generate revenue. The EMS fee will generate an estimated $455,000 in fiscal year 2010-11.
This will not solve our budget shortfall, nor was it ever intended to. But it will help. The best of limited options
For all those who have criticized the EMS fees, I have yet to hear anyone advocate taking the paramedics off of the fire units. Having them in place was and is a good idea and good for our community. I don’t want to reduce the number of paramedics on the fire rigs, and I don’t think the firefighters do, either.
We both know how important they are to protecting our residents. We must, however, face the reality of paying for that increased level of service.
What are the options? Eliminate the fees and simply dig deeper into the city’s financial reserve? We must remember that when the reserves are gone, they are gone. At that point, we will have no choice but to cut services or take what will assuredly be much more drastic steps to raise funds. I believe it is wiser to preserve our financial cushion for as long as we can. I do not expect a rapid economic recovery for our nation, and certainly not for our state.
Do we further cut staff and services in other areas of the city? We could reduce programs for the youth or elderly. We could close the community swimming pool, reduce library hours, close some parks, eliminate the D.A.R.E. program, or consider a number of other cost-reduction options. Since police and fire services make up the lion’s share of the general fund budget, we would eventually have to consider cuts there, too.
Do we find a different way to generate revenue? In his letter, Mr. Perez mentioned but does not endorse a public safety tax.
Such a tax has been discussed and could be designed to ensure levels of both police and fire service and eliminate the need for an EMS fee. I strongly agree that it should be the choice of the voters to impose such a tax.
If such a tax were proposed, it would be the job of the city in drafting a ballot initiative to make it clear to the voters what they would get in return, should they choose to tax themselves. I would encourage that any such measure include a “sunset” clause that would automatically eliminate the tax once revenues reached certain levels as the economy recovered.
The one option we do not have is to repeal the EMS fee program and then do nothing. We must either reduce services or generate more revenue. As has been and will always be the case, that revenue will come from the taxpayers. That is an inescapable fact.
Let me be clear. I am not writing to be confrontational. I have a great deal of respect for Tony Perez and the Tracy Firefighters Association. They serve our community with honor and professionalism. Along with all the city’s employee bargaining groups, they have been instrumental in helping to cope with the city’s current fiscal problems and working to reserve quality service to the people of Tracy.
The firefighters union has every right to disagree with this program. I wish they would have voiced their concerns much sooner, before the fee program was approved. If they want the council to reconsider the program, let’s talk. They are in a great position to provide input, and I welcome their participation if they want to help find a better alternative.
I also encourage members of the public who think there is a better way to solve the problems of maintaining service levels with less revenue to share their ideas.
But please keep in mind, there has to be a solution. Doing nothing is not an option.
• Mike Maciel is a former police captain and a member of the Tracy City Council. He voted in favor of the EMS fee in June 2009.
Fire departments don't have that luxury as every firefigther I've talked with says the city manager will not let them post everything they do. I guess that's because he prefers police to fire.
http://www.kgoradio.com/Article.asp?id=1731214&nId=51&spid=23585
Thank you.
Given the important facts, you raised the crucial question.
Why sit on a pile of money and trun around and nickel&dime us to death...? Maybe, because they can? So far, we've let them get away with it. Our city, like most government organizations, would never make it in the private sector. Running a business the way they run our city would guarantee a bankruptcy.
"We the people" elected the City Council. We need a do-over!
Is the city in the savings and loan business by trying to build a big bank account or are they supposed to spend our taxes to make sure we have good roads, clean water and safe streets?
Shouldn't they spend what they've got before they start taking money away from those of us who don't have any? I think its time "We the People" to take control of the city and make a change at city hall.
Cute, but I only wanted to point out that I was the first and only commentor to suggest that we do NOT cut the fire/paramedic service. I think it's premature to say it is a scare tactic. With a state, county, and city income down by over 20% i think you are too far downstream to make that assumption.
Tipping the bottle a little early today eh, or just getting a start on the weekend.
No one has said we need to cut fire or paramedics.
That hasn't happened, nor will it. It's all a scare tactic, don't fall for it
If they stood together, and clean up (clean OUT) City hall, they might have a chance. That kind of courage, integrity and resolve would get noticed.
In the eyes of most voters, status quo must go.
Depending on which report you read, the City's reserve fund is somewhere between $23 and $28 milion. At $450k/year, the fire department level of service could be maintained for YEARS before it puts a serious dent in the reserve fund. And yet, digging into the pockes of all the hard-working tax-paying citizens seems to be "the best option". I suspect that the resistance to spending the reserve fund this way would mean less funding available in the future for the feel-good pet projects that this city has become well known for.
Making statements that everyone don't agree with, is not putting your foot in your mouth.
It's more like one putting one's foot in someone's, you know what. It's a way of getting a point across.