March 25, 2008

Dear Colleagues:

As you know, I am the Vice Chair of the Budget and Finance (B&F) Committee. I also currently serve as a reserve fire captain for the OCFA, serving as a reserve for the last 27 years, and am the Mayor of the City of Villa Park. At the last B&F Committee meeting on March 12th, we reviewed, and ultimately approved, the recommendations for the Santiago After Action Report (AAR). During the meeting I asked many questions and eventually sided with the majority to move the AAR forward to the Executive Committee.

After the B&F meeting and some further thoughts, I decided to go to the Executive Committee on March 20th as a member of the public and asked them to consider recommending to the board to approve the AAR with one exception. That exception is to ask the OCFA for a few different options for the fourth firefighter position for the 12 Type 3 wild land engines.

My reasoning is as follows. The cost of 5.4 million dollars a year for the 36 new employees is just to costly. The idea of having a 4 person crew at 12 wild land interface stations is great idea and I certainly support it. It is not a new idea but one that could not be afforded in the past. I have a few ideas to recommend to the board that would still accomplish everything that the AAR recommends but at a great cost savings. As an elected official with a fiduciary responsibility to our taxpayers and contract members, I believe that as a Board we must fully explore all alternatives as a means for cost containment. The first thought would be to use the current reserve firefighters to work 24 hour shifts for these positions. We have the men and women in the reserve program who will volunteer to do the 24 hour shifts so that we can implement the recommendation at a great cost savings to tax payers. Also, this will help to strengthen our relationships and provide great training opportunities with the career crews. We can continue to monitor and review the program yearly as recommended, and if it does not meet our Board of Directors' standards, we can revisit the staff recommendation. My concern is that simply implementing the staff recommendation as put forward will cost too much, and once put into place, we all know there is no going back. In today's fiscal environment where all of our cities are expecting cuts in state funding and some of us may be looking at actual reductions in services, it is paramount to give this alternative approach a sound discussion and full review.

The second thought if for some reason the first is deemed not to be sound, is to create a new job classification. The OCFA has not had in the past a 4th person position on a basic life support (BLS) engine. This position could be called something different. For example it could be called an apprentice position, or a 4th man position etc. This new position would be at reduced pay step and benefits that are more affordable. There is no question that when this new job offer is put out we would have more than enough qualified men and women applying.

I know that in my City if I knew of an alternative to a staff recommendation that saved money, did not degrade service levels, and could be easily replaced if it did not produce results, I would support such an alternative. That is what I am asking of all of you.

I understand this alternative approach will not be popular with some. I expect that much will be said and much pressure brought forth to implement the staff recommendation. All I ask is that we give serious consideration to these possible alternatives. I believe our fiduciary responsibility requires us to act accordingly and I ask for your serious and thoughtful consideration of this proposal.

I appreciate your time and look forward to seeing you all at the Board of Directors' meeting.

Sincerely,

Brad Reese
Director, OCFA