Tuesday night’s budget meeting was really good and just is a continuation of the great work that Assistant City Manager Lisa Goldman and Controller Fred Marsh are doing on budget type issues. It’s definitely worth a viewing if you have a few hours to spare.
I wanted to circle back to the slide that I mentioned a few days ago which showed that the Alameda Fire ratio of sworn firefighters to 1000 people was out of whack with the comparison cities. Turns out, the City staff acknowledged that night that the comparison wasn’t necessarily an apples to apples comparison since the cities that they selected did not provide paramedic services. Added to the slide, but not available the other night, was the ratio of Berkeley, which provides paramedic services as part of their Fire Department:
As you can see the Berkeley number is a little closer to the Alameda number, add to that the six firefighters that were funded as part of the SAFER grant — which will no longer be funded once the grant money lapses — the number comes close to the Berkeley ratio.
Let me just quickly add that the reason I’m focusing on public safety and particularly the Fire Department is that everyone else seemed to be focused on public safety, in fact Mayor Marie Gilmore announced that at a future Budget Meeting there would be concentration on the Public Safety budgets and what goes into creating those budgets.
So another interesting tidbit arose in light of the recent information about the City renewing its contract with Alameda County to provide ALS paramedic services and opening the door to the possibility of providing BLS service on a contractual basis. Some people have suggested that the City would do better to bifurcate the paramedics program from the Fire Department and outsource out those services. A few commenters that night — I think both on the side of outsourcing and on the side of keeping the paramedics in house — mentioned a need to complete a study of the paramedics service and I think it would be a good idea. There is a lot of speculation out there about the potential cost savings, but nothing concrete, it would be good to put some numbers and dollars to the cost of the paramedics program and the cost to outsource and those impacts on service levels.
A few numbers though, according to Fred Marsh, in the 2012 – 2012 budget, the cost of the paramedics program is $4.3 million, but the program brings in $2.3 million in revenue bringing the cost of the program to the City of $2 million. Personally I haven’t heard of any private operator offering to take over Alameda’s paramedic program for $2 million or less and provide the same service levels, but that’s really the only way that Alameda will “save” anything if the paramedic program were be separated from the Fire Department.
The way outsourcing works is: you promise anything necessary at whatever price necessary to win the contract and then, after you win the contract, you cut back on services delivered or the quality of the employees until the contract becomes profitable. Anyone who suggests outsourcing should live it somewhere else for a couple of years before suggesting it for city services in Alameda.
Comment by Tom Schweich — October 28, 2011 @ 6:49 am
At the risk of appearing dense, how does the paramedic program bring in revenue?
Comment by Denise Shelton — October 28, 2011 @ 7:11 am
I thought Lisa and Fred’s presentation Tuesday night was terrific, and was pleased to see fairly good attendance. I hope others will view the video because it is important to know the budget foundation as we go into a period of discussion of hard choices.
Thursday, the committee formed by CM John Russo to look into the pension obligation situation, one of our “600 lb. gorillas in the room” convened for its first meeting. What a powerfully knowledgeable group of people he has assembled to study the actuarial information! The two Kevins, people with wide experience with various aspects of the financial system, and a couple of rather “just plain folks” such as I to ask questions and make an attempt to validate the numbers. I am increasingly impressed with Mr. Russo’s willingness to be inclusive and to assemble local expertise to participate in problem solving. I don’t agree with everything he does, but I think he is setting Alameda on a more positive course that may result in broader civic engagement that will lead us to resolution of some of our more pressing “issues”. Quite a contrast from the carping, outrage and confrontational space we have been in for some time, that has led us to no solutions to anything.
I must also mention that he is quite adept at giving credit to staff for the work being presented. Lisa and Fred did a great job, and recognition is very important.
Comment by Kate Quick. — October 28, 2011 @ 7:39 am
2. It’s not the paramedic program that brings in revenue, but rather the Emergency Ambulance Transport Program (staffed by paramedics) that brings in the revenue through the collection of transport fees.
Comment by dc — October 28, 2011 @ 8:04 am
Off topic but have you read about Sun Cal and City re: lawsuit?
Comment by Suzanne Lindsey — October 28, 2011 @ 9:01 am
Any Reason we don’t compare numbers nationally versus other Cities locally that are in same financial dire as Alameda and State of California. Or do we just want to keep in the unsustainable mode and keep kicking can down road.
Comment by John — October 28, 2011 @ 9:41 am
6. Do you mean cities having cost of living comparable to the SF Bay Area?
Comment by dc — October 28, 2011 @ 9:58 am
Denise, you’re not dense. You just haven’t ridden in the back of an AFD ambulance, like I have. When you get the bill, it’s clear your check goes to the City of Alameda/firefighters. This also provides a dangerous incentive for public safety to 5150 people, as transport usually involves an ambulance ride. Those insanity arrests were dandy money-makers, albeit at the cost of personal civil rights.
Comment by vigi — October 28, 2011 @ 10:47 am
I could use an explanation of the paramedics/ambulance program and how it’s funded. It’s confusing, especially now that the city is paying a parcel tax to the county. If the city provides the ambulance service, then what are we paying for?
The rationale for the use of firefighters as paramedics is also confusing. I recall hearing a while back that the city needed “x” number of firefighters to fight fires, so therefore, it made sense to have them double as paramedics, and make full use of their time.
Now I’m hearing that the city needs “x” number of firefighters in order to provide paramedic services, in addition to their other duties. So it raises the question, why must we have sworn firefighters acting as paramedics? The average firefighter costs the city around $180,000 in all, plus retirement benefits, so it make sense to look for alternatives.
This reminds me too that the issue here is about money. It gets translated into an “attack” on the AFD but in reality, it’s just a budget crunch, and the legitimate worries that residents have about maintaining city services.
There’s also the ratio of firefighters to residents. I’d question whether the comparison to Berkeley is really all that valid. The Berkeley FD provides services to the UC campus (fire and ambulance) — UC has campus police but no campus fire department. UC Berkeley has around 35,000 students (however many are on campus every day), plus faculty members and staff, so that’s more like a city and a half that Berkeley is dealing with. They also have the risk of urban wild fires, which Alameda manifestly does not.
And then of course, you could ask whether Berkeley should be using firefighters as paramedics — maybe they shouldn’t.
Comment by dlm — October 28, 2011 @ 12:00 pm
On the SunCal issue: Action Alameda had a good post on this recently — see the city’s press release below in response to SunCal’s bizarre-as-usual claims about a recent court decision:
http://www.action-alameda-news.com/2011/10/25/suncal-defeats-city-of-alameda-not-so-fast/
“The Alameda defendants successfully argued that the lawsuit should only go forward at this time on the very limited issue of whether the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement [ENA] precludes recovery of damages by Suncal. … The judge also said he has “a serious concern” regarding Suncal’s claimed $100 million in lost profits.”
The issue is whether the damages are limited to what the ENA allows — which I believe is the return of the $1 million deposit.
I heard John Russo speak on the issue recently has well, and he said that SunCal has “0″ chance of recovering anything, beyond the ENA deposit. He also pointed out that it was SunCal who failed to negotiate in good faith when they used the ballot process to do an end run about the ENA.
Remember too that Russo dealt w/ SunCal in Oakland, around the Oak Knoll property, and forced them to spend several million cleaning up the property, so he knows the score.
Comment by dlm — October 28, 2011 @ 12:15 pm
7) Yes
Here is recap from Dept of Labor Statistics
Median annual wages of fire fighters were $44,260 in May 2008. The middle 50 percent earned between $31,180 and $58,440. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $22,440, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $72,210. Median annual wages were $44,800 in local government, $45,610 in the Federal Government, $25,300 in other support services, and $37,870 in State governments.
Median annual wages of first-line supervisors/managers of fire fighting and prevention workers were $67,440 in May 2008. The middle 50 percent earned between $53,820 and $86,330. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $40,850, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $108,930. First-line supervisors/managers of fire fighting and prevention workers employed in local government earned a median of about $69,000 a year.
According to the International City-County Management Association, average salaries in 2008 for sworn full-time positions were as follows:
Position Minimum annual base salary Maximum annual base salary
Fire chief $78,672 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX$104,780
Deputy chief 69,166XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 88,571
Battalion chief 66,851XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 81,710
Assistant fire chief 65,691 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX83,748
Fire captain 60,605XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 72,716
Fire lieutenant 50,464 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX60,772
Engineer 48,307 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX62,265
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos329.htm
In 1978 when Prop 13 kicked in til 1995 Police and Fire Recieved about the same amount of funding from Prop 13. 15-16%.
Police departments received generally the same amount of funding, from 15% in 1978 to 16% during 1995.
The Based Closed in 1997 and we knew about it 3-4 years prior.
Now those departments are now 70% of Budget that were 30-32 % of Budget.
Comment by John — October 28, 2011 @ 2:59 pm
9: Alameda’s geographic isolation as an island is a major reason that our current AFD dual-training system is a good idea.
First of all, every trained AFD paramedic is also a fully trained and certified firefighter. This means that our paramedics are available to fight fires when needed, and that many of our firefighters are also trained emergency medical responders.
In and after an emergency such as an earthquake or a Berkeley Hills-sized fire, access to and from Alameda will be compromised. (Remember that we have NO bridges or tubes that are or will be reinforced to “lifeline” standards, meaning they will both withstand an earthquake and be usable immediately afterward. In other words, our bridges and tubes are designed — at best — to not collapse in a quake but they probably will be closed for quite a while.
With all the bridges and tubes (probably) closed down and fire as the biggest risk post-quake, it will behoove us to have more firefighters available on the island(s) rather than fewer. And even our slightly larger-than-average AFD will be stretched to the limit or worse if the all-too-predictable fires break out after a quake.
It is all too easy to say that we have too many police officers or too many firefighters — or too many paramedic/firefighters — when no one’s house is burning down and there are no serious (7.0-8.0 magnitude) earthquakes underway.
Thinking –even for just a few minutes — about the last “major” quake (Loma Prieta in 1989), which the US Geological Service (USGS) says will pale in comparison to the predicted “big one” in the next 40 or so years, ought to give even the most anti-firefighter partisan serious pause…..
Comment by Jon Spangler — October 28, 2011 @ 7:19 pm
The majority of Cal students do live in Berkeley and are counted as residents in the figures.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 28, 2011 @ 9:38 pm
If Alameda has the equivalent of UC Berkeley anywhere in town I haven’t seen it. Berkeley has a population of 100,000 and it’s not the case that a third of those are students. That doesn’t account either for the faculty, staff and buildings associated with a major university.
Also note that the Berkeley FD is supposedly responsible for campus rescue operations following a major quake, tho admittedly, they’ve already announced that they can’t do it.
Comment by dlm — October 29, 2011 @ 12:11 pm
Doesn’t the UC Campus have its own police?
Comment by Kate Quick. — October 29, 2011 @ 5:58 pm
Yes, they have campus police, but no fire dept. It looks like other UC campuses do, but Berkeley doesn’t.
Comment by dlm — October 29, 2011 @ 9:18 pm
No, Alameda does not have a UC Berkeley here, but I thought your point was about the resident/ fire personnel ratio. I don’t know where to find the figures about what proportion of Cal students live in Berkeley, but at least when I was there, with only about 3-4000 less students, most lived in Berkeley. The population of Berkeley was slightly more, about 120,000 vs 113,000 now. The dorms, the fraternities and sororities, and the co-ops are all in Berkeley city limits and addresses. There are many, many apartment buildings in Berkeley in the neighborhoods near campus where all of the occupants are students, including the one where I resided on Milvia and Berkeley Way. So deducing that somehow Berkeley has 35,000 “extra” people not counted in the resident population because of Cal is incorrect, IMHO.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 30, 2011 @ 9:38 am
Further, Alameda’s housing stock is more similar to Berkeley’s than it is to Livermore, Dublin, or Pleasanton, with large numbers of older homes on small lots– fire hazards of old wiring rampant. Berkeley at least has a seismic retrofit incentive program, unlike Alameda.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 30, 2011 @ 9:49 am
We should probably just continue to model our budget like Greece. Let’s give everyone more money and benefits hiring more people and ignore our financial experts regarding unsustainabilty. We are setting our bar too low by trying to be Berkeley .
Comment by John — October 30, 2011 @ 12:34 pm
From 2009 estimates of demographic data. Make of this what you will.
ALAMEDA:
Under 5 years 4,225 6.0%
5 to 9 years 4,257 6.1%
10 to 14 years 3,990 5.7%
15 to 19 years 3,124 4.5%
20 to 24 years 3,663 5.2%
25 to 34 years 10,060 14.4%
35 to 44 years 11,216 16.0%
45 to 54 years 11,104 15.8%
55 to 59 years 5,489 7.8%
60 to 64 years 3,541 5.1%
65 to 74 years 4,441 6.3%
75 to 84 years 3,378 4.8%
85 years and over 1,592 2.3%
BERKELEY:
Under 5 years 4,020 4.0%
5 to 9 years 3,287 3.3%
10 to 14 years 3,480 3.4%
15 to 19 years 11,262 11.2%
20 to 24 years 14,598 14.5%
25 to 34 years 15,660 15.5%
35 to 44 years 12,938 12.8%
45 to 54 years 12,609 12.5%
55 to 59 years 6,894 6.8%
60 to 64 years 4,869 4.8%
65 to 74 years 6,456 6.4%
75 to 84 years 3,167 3.1%
85 years and over 1,637 1.6%
Comment by dlm — October 30, 2011 @ 12:37 pm
Is this any easier to read?
ALAMEDA:
Under 5 years ___ 4,225 ___6.0%
05 to 09 years ___4,257 ___6.1%
10 to 14 years ___3,990 ___5.7%
15 to 19 years ___3,124 ___4.5%
20 to 24 years ___3,663 ___5.2%
25 to 34 years __10,060 __14.4%
35 to 44 years __11,216 __16.0%
45 to 54 years __11,104 __15.8%
55 to 59 years ___5,489 ___7.8%
60 to 64 years ___3,541 ___5.1%
65 to 74 years ___4,441 ___6.3%
75 to 84 years ___3,378 ___4.8%
85 years and over _1,592 __2.3%
BERKELEY:
Under 5 years ___ 4,020 ___4.0%
05 to 09 years ___ 3,287 ___3.3%
10 to 14 years ___ 3,480 ___3.4%
15 to 19 years ___11,262 __11.2%
20 to 24 years ___14,598 __14.5%
25 to 34 years ___15,660 __15.5%
35 to 44 years ___12,938 __12.8%
45 to 54 years ___12,609 __12.5%
55 to 59 years ___ 6,894 ___6.8%
60 to 64 years ___ 4,869 ___4.8%
65 to 74 years ___ 6,456 ___6.4%
75 to 84 years ___ 3,167 ___3.1%
85 years and over _1,637 __1.6%
What the city needs, really, is an objective analysis of the FD staffing needs, given our setting.
Comment by dlm — October 30, 2011 @ 12:46 pm
Never forget it was 2 UC Berkeley Campus Police who found Jaycee Dugard! Something else I can be proud of my alma mater for. And UC students aren’t “extra residents”. When you’re a student renter for 4+ years in a Berkeley house or apt, you accumulate a lot of stuff you don’t want to lose in a fire, just like any other city resident. At least 1 UC student died in that firestorm. Students are people, too.
Comment by vigi — October 31, 2011 @ 11:59 am