Fire budget sparks uncertainty

The final line of the article says: "I think the council will be able (when we go through the budget) to have a clear explanation," Keene said.

Yet the council has already been going through the budget for quite some time. The very final vote is tomorrow (Tuesday). And we still have no clue as to what $1.3 million will be cut.

Why hold off giving information until the very final day?

The article also quotes Keene as saying the city "is not concealing any information" about where the cuts will be made. Since no information has been provided, does that mean the city has no idea where the cuts will actually be? Why then project any cuts at all?

If the CEO of a private company tried this kind of obfuscation, he or she would be fired.

Ditch the out of control defined benefit pension, and switch to 401K. Even with an an employer contribution beyond what anyone in the private sector gets (say, 18K / year with no match required), the savings would be substantial. Turnover, if any, would be manageable, as there is plenty of demand for high six figure jobs that don't require a degree.

The union would probably hide behind the "California Rule" -- but the threat is empty as that precedent has been wrecked in court (the Marin County pension spiking rights case, which is to be heard and codified soon by the CA supreme court, or the SCOTUS if CA reverses the decision).

Calipers has buyout requirements to pull out of the state pension plan. It is priced prohibitively . For Palo Alto to switch to a 401k they would have to pay Calpers $1billion for the privilege of editing. We are trapped on a sinking ship.

Lets see, 500 applicants for every job opening. How many actual fires a year putting their lives on the line? And we are worried we can't find qualified replacement candidates. Let them walk and replace them with new fresh enthusiastic recruits.

Sarcasm alert.

Yes - so simple and so smart. Just chuck everybody and bring in raw, inexperienced people. While we're at it, let's throw out all of the captains and chiefs too. Bring in rookies for that as well. Great idea.

I don't know what the savings would be, but stop sending out two fire engines and crews to accompany an ambulance when someone calls 911 experiencing chest pain or any other medical emergency.

The whole concept of a "Fire Department" needs to be re-thought, here and elsewhere. The idea that we still pay trained firefighters to sleep (and eat, and food-shop, and prepare meals, and work out, etc.), and pay millions of dollars to refurbish facilities to provide for all those superfluous activities, while the number/impact of fires has dropped precipitously over the years, is ludicrous.
For starters, refocus around medical response (the vast majority of demand for "Fire Departments"); and restructure staff scheduling to be like any other organization (in the private or public sector -- like police) that needs to provide 24-hour coverage. Productivity, effectiveness, and cost reduction potential is significant.

"Nickel said that because of uncertainty surrounding the Stanford contract, the department has been "running with almost double-digit vacancies for a couple of years." "

Cut the pusillanimous flathats loose and get on with running the department for the citizens.

@ Mike....Great post, but you make too much sense for the bureaucrats to understand when they unable to see the forest through the unionized trees.

If salaries are going up 7.5% over 3 years, why was the budget going up 14% in one year?
The article gives no explanation. Are they trying to cover over the Stanford shortfall?

Removing our seasonal fire station at Foothills is a disaster waiting to happen. Are our council member's memories so short that they have forgotten the foothills wildfire some years ago that spread so quickly a row of homes along Astradero were burnt down? There are many more homes in the Palo Alto foothills now than there were then. Can't wait to see the lawsuits after the next fire in the foothills occurs, which it will sooner or later with our tinder dry summers.

Safety should be the number 1 responsibility of the city council and staff. Yet council and staff will cut the fire and ems budget tomorrow while at the same time adding $8 million to the budget for bike improvements. How about not cutting the fire department budget, restoring the summer Foothills Park coverage, and allocating $6.7 million for biking instead?

[Post removed.]

Ding ding ding. You got that right. City is making up for the Stanford shortfall by cutting service for the tax paying citizens. It's all smoke and mirrors. Services will be cut. They'll tell you they aren't cutting anything but the way they will shuffle and cross staff apparatus it will be worse than closing a station. Politically they can't close down an engine so they'll strategically brown out engines throughout Palo Alto.
Palo Alto has the cheapest run fire department due to the revenue they make from Stanford, ambulances, and fire inspectors. It's really a shame what is happening.

Why must every city in Santa Clara County have their own set of 'chiefs' who gets paid an astronomical amount of money for such a small department? We can just have one chief, we must have assistant chiefs, training chiefs, ems chiefs, battalion chiefs, and the list goes on. There seems to be too much duplication of effort in just the top ranks of the department. Is it time to look at a County wide model or regional model?

Maggie Heath for City Council! Her observations are right on and her simple suggestion is sensible. And painfully obvious.

As for our City Manager's reported comments: it would be great to hear straight talk for a change. How is NOT PROVIDING details effectively different from concealing?

Thank you to How's That Again for pointing out that "If the CEO of a private company tried this kind of obfuscation, he or she would be fired". What's going on here is mind-boggling.

First out the chute, How’s That Again, nailed it … and maybe more.

Within three hours of the article and his/her skewer of an indefensible position, upon instructions from the city manager, the fire chief sent personalized emails to all residents who had written to the city. In it, he stated that when his proposal for deployment service changes is ready, expected to be in the fall, it would come to a public hearing and council decision, and, in the meantime, staffing models would not change.

If this hearing goes through in a proper manner (i.e., well-written and complete staff report released 10 days prior to the meeting, an informative and clear presentation at the meeting, and council clarification questions before the public speaks), we can have a meaningful discussion to assesses the trades-offs between any reduction in fire services and budgetary needs.

And hopefully, as a result of this public outcry, prevent a repeat of budgetary hide-and-seek.