I am responding to Kevin Romick’s request for input as requested in the Jan. 13 edition of The Press.
I believe that the Grand Jury report is spot-on as it relates to our fire protection services and required funding that they are asking for from we the people; i.e., the fire protection services’ employer. We the people need to realize that we are their employers. This being said, the following questions need to be asked of our employees:
1. As Kevin’s employer, issue should be taken with his comments in the Jan. 6 Press, and I quote: “These numbers weren’t just pulled out of the sky.” The fact is: two different consulting companies have informed the board at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars to us the employer that anything over $200 per parcel will not pass muster with the employers of the fire district.
This is where the number comes from, and is a matter of public record. If more money is what you want, let’s start being honest about what is really needed, as the Grand Jury has come forward and done.
2. Information has been given to our employees (the fire district) as it relates to alternative funding for “the district” that it refuses to explore. There are companies that specialize in privatization of fire districts. There was USDA money available to help subsidize “the district” last year.
Both options fell on deaf ears last year. Our employees remained focused on removing more funding from we the employer instead of alternatives that would have saved the employer money.
3. Our employees continue to spend money recklessly. How much did those brand-new F350 pickups cost us the employer? $60-70-80,000, fully equipped with lights, radios and labeling. Our employees then complain we do not have money to fix equipment.
The cost savings between building the new Oakley fire station and not building it has never been explained. Why would you spend money in Oakley and complain that the Bethel Island station is a disaster?
4. You tell your employer that you need more money but do not want to fully divulge what the funds are for. The case in point: when asked about salary and benefits for rank and file, the comment is: we cannot tell you because we are in negotiations.
Are you serious? You want money but you do not want to tell your employer how it is to be spent, even in general terms. This is not a good business model. By the way, if you are exceeding 50 percent of your operational budget in labor and benefits, you are in trouble. The issue is not to increase costs but to cut them and live within your means.
5. There are other communities in the Bay Area that have adjusted to current economic circumstance and not burden their employers further. The City of Pacifica has decided to reduce the crews of its vehicles from three to two. They have also combined services with Daly City. Why have our employees, “the district,” not looked into what is working for them?
6. To not have a sunset clause on the increase is insulting. At some point in the future, we all know the market will return in this area. Not only will our employees have the benefit of the parcel tax but will also have the increased revenue once property taxes regain where they once were. Is it fair for our employees to remove every dollar they can from their employer?
Jonathan Silver, Discovery Bay
How much would the fire department get?
It also said a list of local Schools that would get funds.
Based on the 2009-2010 Oakley RDA budget they brought in $3.9 million. They were expecting a drop of 10% for the next fiscal year.
http://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/UserFiles/File/Finance/RDA/Recommended Redevelopment Budget 09 10.pdf
Please see page 13 of 27.
Since fire protection receives between 4 to 6 cents on the dollar in Oakley based on the town's needs in 1978 per allocations of Assembly Bill 8 passed after Proposition 13. 10 percent less of $3.9 million is $3.51 million and by applying the 4 to 6 cents of every dollar calculation fire protection will be looking at getting anywhere between $140,400 and $210,600. Under the tax rate areas in Oakley most of the funding 60-75% will be divided up between the six east county school districts most Oakley residents pay taxes to. Governor Brown is dissolving the RDA's to reduce the state's burden of funding for K-12. Fire and all other agencies are unintended but small beneficiaries.
If you are interested in seeing where your taxes are going please look up the following page, find your property tax statement, locate your tax rate area number and input it onto this page.
Contra Costa Tax Rate Area info
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=1125
I hope this information is useful because learning how our taxes are allocated really surprised me.
After aggressively engaging this Board for the better part of 18 months in board meetings, ad hoc meetings and email communication, I find Mr. Romick to be one of the better informed members of the 9 member commission.
We must not lose sight of how we got here: Prop 13. While that measure had many positive attributes, we cannot escape 2 components it has imposed upon ECCFPD. 1) It locked in a District average of approximately 6% of your property tax dollar going to fire suppression, while all neighboring Districts fund at much higher rates. Some 3 and 4 times higher within this County. 2) The formulas which locked in these rates were of a rural mindset and did not properly account for the growth East County has experienced, particularly in the last 10-15 years.
The District has not received any significant supplemental support through tax revenues since that formula was locked in place. We are attempting to fund our suburban fire district with 1970s rural funding models. It simply does not work.
In simplistic terms you only have two viable ways out if you want to maintain any realistic level of service. You can revisit the funding models by waging a campaign to change them in Sacramento. Those models cannot be changed by local or County government. But keep in mind, it’s still a property tax dollar and all you’re doing is reslicing the same size pie. So while you could redirect more money toward fire suppression it will come at a cost to other government services which compete for that dollar. In our area, far and away the largest portion of that goes to education. So you have to ask yourself if you’re willing to sell out educating our kids to maintaining our existing fire protection if the intent is to maintain tax burden status quo.
Alternatively and what is under discussion here is a supplemental property tax assessment that would be exclusively for fire. One of the points that has come up in town halls and I think bears a response here. If the measure passes, it will not be used as replacement money for existing revenue streams. In other words, the existing 6% is not in jeopardy of being folded back into any general fund and redirected to some other service. If the voters decide to approve this additional funding it truly does augment the revenue stream and allow us to keep services at existing level and explore options of modestly expanding service in the near term horizon.
Also keep in mind that national standards are 4 person engines with one being a Paramedic. Under no plan that is on the table do we even get to that level. So even with an approval of the measure we will have a district that is below the national standard. I mention this for folks who might be thinking and for those who have previously stated that somehow we’re trying to build a Cadillac of a department.
- As for some of the points raised in the Silver letter; the USDA available grant monies were if I recall correctly a fairly small amount of available cash with nationwide competition. Any suggestion that this would or could have had significant impact on the current deficit is totally false. It should be noted that the District has looked at many grant possibilities, has applied for 3 and recently announced they have received award notifications for two of them. The latest one contributes significantly to a necessary radio upgrade. Still pending is a grant application for a ladder truck.
- CalFire has been discussed several times over many years and has been deemed a non-option. I’m not understand the desire of this small group of people who Mr. Silver associates with to continually bring up this dead issue. It was decided the cost savings are not there and the concession of local control to Sacramento control of our fire suppression decision making is not what we want. This doesn’t appear to be a viable suggestion by Mr. Silver. More like a group that can’t seem take “no” for an answer.
- Private sector fire delivery has also been explored. You need not look any further than the AMR vs. engine based Paramedic costs to understand that private sector offerings are not always cheaper. Just on principle I have a problem with the speed and professionalism of a critical public safety service being profit driven. By design you have a profit overhead that must reward the stockholders that does not exist through public sector delivery. Wage and benefit savings with that option have not been shown through any significant studies that I am aware of and it would be in Mr. Silver’s best interest to come to the table with a better researched or documented approach for the idea.
- Salary and benefit information for ECCFPD is readily available public knowledge. As is the fact that they have been making concessions for multiple years now. I don’t know where Mr. Silver gets his information to be making the comments he does on this topic.
- Comparisons to other fire districts such as Pacifica are not appropriate unless you are going to offer full context. We’re dealing with a large district here that spans both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Funding is quite different as are compensation levels from Pacifica. That’s simply not an honest way to discuss or propose cuts in service or to say a ballot measure is not needed here.
Opinions on the always volatile issue of tax ballot measures is encouraged. But hopefully folks can bring better thought out or researched points to the table. We have barely 6 weeks before ballot language must be finalized an it’s pretty late in the process for folks to be coming in and basically making demands as Mr. Silver has done here when he chose not to attend most of the last 18 months of public meetings on this topic. I also don’t recall his attending the local town hall opportunities. Not that it diminishes his right to participate. Just that it explains some of the ignorance displayed in the points rendered.
For those who are criticizing the plan, I have to ask. Are you doing it just for the sake of attack the District and the individuals trying to move this forward? Or do you really believe that we can have a fire district serving 250 square miles using only 3 stations and still be considered viable?
I read that the chief directed staff to recalculate cost of living index or 3%. I attended meetings that told us that there was a 2% cola included in the tax.
What is going on with a 2% Cola, a 3% cost of living and the 5% increase? I do not understand.
Why won't the fire district explore the other options ? Cal Fire or this one that Jonathan talks about, privatization should be explored first. We do not here anything other than ConFire is too expensive. Well, if you take their gold plated salaries I guess it would.
I pay the same taxes as everyone else in this state. Being on a fixed income is very hard.