S. Tahoe considers doing away with 3 fire division chief jobs
By Kathryn Reed
A fire department without upper management except for a chief who divides his time with the police department.
That is one scenario on the negotiating table in South Lake Tahoe.
The city has a $1.5 million deficit gap to deal with before the next fiscal year begins Oct. 1. The reality is it must be closed in less than a month in order for staff to bring the budget to the City Council on Aug. 26. California cities must adopt a balanced budget.
In early spring when the council approved the five-year budget plan it included receiving concessions from the seven labor groups in the city to eliminate that $1.5 million from the books. The city wants to save $1 million in pension cost by having employees pay their share – 8 percent for non-sworn personnel and 9 percent for sworn. (Police officers currently pay 6 percent; all others have taxpayers foot the bill.) The city wants to save the other half million dollars by having employees pick up more of the health care premium costs.
Fairly regular meet-and-confer sessions between the city and bargaining units have been occurring, but not everyone is at the table to do the heavy lifting that is necessary for the budget to be balanced.
The only contract that expires at the end of this fiscal year is the General and Public Works group. However, serious negotiations are not slated to begin with that group until Aug. 12 because the union changed representatives. This gives both sides limited time to reach an agreement before the council gets involved.
Two of the six groups that have agreed to negotiate a year before their respective contracts expire are the fire unions. One represents management – or the three division chiefs; the other group includes everyone else. (The chief is not in a bargaining unit.)
At the meeting July 22 with the fire safety management group, the city floated the idea of eliminating all three of their positions.
“There are all sorts of reasons why that is monumentally a bad idea,” Ray Zachau, fire marshal and division chief, said. “People seem to have forgotten we live in a fire prone area.”
He said building inspections, fuels reduction projects and public safety would be at risk with no division chiefs on staff.
Zachau emphasized the three at his rank have agreed to the pension and health care benefit concessions the city has asked for, but they don’t understand the thought process in eliminating their jobs. This group doesn’t understand why when they’ve done what the city wants, they are being targeted for elimination.
The one known staffing change is Police Chief Brian Uhler will also oversee the fire department starting Sept. 1 when Fire Chief Lorenzo Gigliotti leaves.
Because of labor rules City Manager Tony O’Rourke is not allowed to discuss specifics about what is or isn’t being offered.
O’Rourke told Lake Tahoe News if all the groups don’t step up to the plate, jobs would be cut throughout the city. He has said this from the get-go, with the council knowing it would happen based on the five-year plan they adopted.
Just how many jobs and which ones would be eliminated if concessions are not made remains to be seen.
“Our single largest cost center is personnel. We will have no other choice but to reduce our staff,” O’Rourke said. “We are not going to raid the operating reserve.”
He said doing so to the tune of $5.2 million in the past was bad fiscal policy and allowed the city to not live within its means.
Compounding the problem is the city’s fiscal situation is worse than in March when the five-year plan was adopted because property tax values keep going down. That revenue stream is one of three key pieces for South Tahoe.
Fire management and city negotiators are scheduled to meet again Aug. 1.
As for the rest of the fire department, union representative Dan Sullivan did not return calls.
Labor and anti-trust laws prevent all of the city’s bargaining units from meeting as one to come up with a plan that would save jobs and help them negotiate as a whole.
At the Aug. 2 City Council meeting it’s possible the five will be faced with the decision whether to go to the voters about what to do regarding pensions for city employees. If voters have a say, it may not matter what is or isn’t negotiated.
I grew up in a town with a volunteer fire department. It was called government service.
Haven’t we already tried this in the past? Didn’t it fail miserably?
Hand the reins over to Lake Valley.
Building inspections, fuels reduction projects and public safety would be at risk with no division chiefs on staff. Have we forgotten Angora already?
We have to start living within our means! If it’s felt that this proposal isn’t the right away to go about it, then please step forward with alternative plans!
The fire departments should be consolidated. There is no need for such costly overlapping and duplicity. Too much redundancy needs to be eliminated.
Hard times, hard anwsers. Seasonal firefighters?
now would be a great time to boost the Volunteer part of the City department and look to the community to help support the agency. Works really well just over the hill in Gardnerville and other places. fact of the matter is it is not 2006 anymore nor will it be like that agian anytime soon. How much more can the city cut and still operate basic services? Would probably be more cost effective to contract out the building inspections (also way down from 2006 numbers),fuels reduction (maybe we could contract with Cal Fire since they are up here too), as for public safety it might be time to take a little bit better care of ourselves. Hate to see this stuff happening to the area i love but the dollars dont lie.
David, Angora area is in the county and does not fall under city inspections and fuel reductions.
An alternative and I believe more logical plan is to close fire station #2, in the center of town. Why do we need 3 stations in a town this small? We would have a station on Ski Run and the other near the Y on Lake Tahoe Blvd. We do need to live within our means but eliminating the Division Chiefs and putting the Police Chief in charge seems risky. Has this been discussed?
we had a volunteer fire department,until they started to build their EMPIRE!
we had private ambalance service and it didn’t cost what they charge now. Have one fire department and let the city or county back charge the other. Let the ambalance service go privae. It will be less costly than it is now.
No need for fire dept., if you don’t owe money on your house. Fire depts. lower insurance cost only if you need insurance.
Though I hate to see the cuts and the possible reduction in service, you would have to be blind to not see the waste. The number of city vehicles, including fire department vehicles, picking up their mail, shopping, long lunches, etc. has decreased but, apparently, not enough. I don’t believe it to be the troops, it is the management. It is easy to think that the fire and police should be cut, but it is also easy to see the shameless waste. The paradigm must change. Next: Caltrans.
Why don’t you need a fire department when your house is paid for? I own my home, but insurance is important…who wants to lose everything in case of a fire or other disaster?
I appreciate what fire fighters and paramedics do. Perhaps we can revamp and adjust to make the budget work, but we still need them!
You can lose everything with or without fire depts. and or Ins. Its your choice, its called freedom.
Is it possible homeowners insurance will rise as a result of few able bodied personnel on hand for a potential fire?
Is it possible homeowners insurance will rise as a result of fewer able bodied personnel on hand for a potential fire?
We have a couple of chiefs from Cal Fire up in the basin maybe the city could contract with them for chief services. On a part time basis this could save money and still have the leadership there to guide our fire dept.
How many fire departments do we need in SLT? 4?