ECCFPD Station 95 on Bethel Island is one of the stations that could be closed by next month because of declining district revenue.
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Photo by Richard Wisdom
In a meeting attended by about 100 members of the public Monday, the ECCFPD board ordered staff to prepare a budget that includes 48 firefighters and six stations. The current service model includes 45 firefighters (an additional five vacant positions are covered by overtime) and eight stations.
Currently, six of the eight stations are staffed with two firefighters (the industry standard is three) while two are staffed with three. The budget the ECCFPD board has requested would staff four stations with three firefighters and two stations with two. The district covers 250 square miles of far East Contra Costa, including Brentwood, Oakley, Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Byron and Knightsen.
Many of those in attendance Tuesday implored the district to “look under every rock” to find a way to keep all the stations open. Many echoed the words of Board Member Chris Finetti of Discovery Bay, who read a statement at the beginning of the meeting. It said, in part: “I’d like to state for the record that I’m not going to be able to support any options that include station closure at this time. I believe it would be reckless to remove fire protection from the public just as we enter fire season, and while we fortunately have reserves that can still protect us during the next fiscal year while we address this problem in a more informed, less reactive way.
“I think that the worst thing we can do is put the communities we serve at risk by making the drastic decision to close stations without considering other options, and especially without allowing the public the opportunity to support a revenue enhancement.”
Because district funding was established when far East County fire protection was provided largely by paid-on-call volunteers, and because the current recession has decimated property tax revenues, the district is operating at a deficit. Over the last two years, revenue has fallen nearly 25 percent, and another 10-percent drop is expected next year. This year the shortfall amounts to $1.7 million; next year’s is expected to be $2.3 million. Before the 2012-13 fiscal year ends, cash reserves being used to make up the shortfall will be exhausted and the district could face bankruptcy.
The 48 firefighter/six station plan would save the district $814,000 in personnel costs. Dropping a contract with CalFire to staff an additional station on Marsh Creek Road (CalFire pays to keep the station open during the fire season) saves $366,000, and shuttering two stations cuts $70,000 from the operations budget. The total savings in the plan are $1.25 million.
Acting Fire Chief Hugh Henderson told the board that cuts alone cannot solve the district’s financial woes. Even the most severe option examined – eliminating six firefighters and three stations – would stave off the potential bankruptcy only one year longer.
A number of possible actions were brought up at the meeting, including charging out-of-area people for emergency services, contracting with CalFire to run the district, borrowing, selling the district’s fire boat and going to the cities within the district and asking for money. Board members said that those options had been looked at before, and were either impractical or did not make enough of a difference to stave off the inevitable: a tax increase.
Several board members said they did not believe residents of the district would support a new tax unless the board, which took control of the district from the County Board of Supervisors earlier this year, proved it could produce a budget for this year given the resources it has, and showed it could make difficult and possibly unpopular decisions needed to ultimately resolve the problem.
“We can’t go out and ask the citizens of East County to raise taxes if we can’t take the abuse that might come by closing stations,” said Board Member Kevin Romick of Oakley.
Adding urgency to the situation is the fact that it will take 18 months to prepare a ballot measure, submit it to voters and, if it passes, begin to receive revenue. Chairman Erick Stonebarger of Brentwood said the board must be sure it’s asking for enough, as there will be no second chance.
“We’re only going to get one shot at this,” he said. “We better make sure the number is right.”
Although no decision was made about which stations might face closure, discussion centered on the three that answer the fewest calls: Station 95 in Bethel Island (383 calls per year), Station 58 in Discovery Bay (379), and Station 57 in Byron (294).
Henderson’s report showed response times would increase in the areas now served by those stations were they closed. In Station 95’s area, the response could go from 7.1 minutes to an estimated 12 to 18 minutes; Station 57’s area could go from 7.5 minutes to 12 to 14 minutes; and Station 58’s area could go from 6.5 minutes to 9 to 11.
While some response times would increase, the three-person crews at most stations would increase efficiency in other ways, Stonebarger pointed out, since they would allow more calls to be answered by one engine instead of two. The additional help would also keep the firefighters safer and reduce fatigue.
Many of those in attendance Tuesday came from Bethel Island, whose remote location, large number of seniors and combustible peat soil pose special concerns. “East County has always treated Bethel Island as the poor second cousin,” said island resident Linda Robertson. “If you take our fire station, we’re pretty much doomed. People will die, houses will burn, and businesses will burn.”
Bethel Island’s situation is further complicated by the condition of Station 95, which has been condemned due to mold, lead paint and asbestos. The challenges of building on the island’s floodplain makes replacing it more expensive.
A special meeting was called for June 29, when the board will adopt its new budget and decide which stations will close. The closures will likely stay open until mid-July to help get through the July 4 fireworks season.
If you disagree with the way the law reads and applies assessments versus special taxes and it comes down to a legal challenge, who do you suspect will win? The courts with their definitions………….or you?
You've made your stance against a new tax pretty clear. You think the burden should be entirely on new development via assessments. Never mind that you haven't done the math to even show it's feasible. Never mind that you don't get to re-do history and add that assessment today without a 50% 1 approval of the parcel owners. Never mind that there is no sizeable new development on the horizon to become a part of your idea. Your statement of not letting the ENTIRE burden fall on the existing residents is just strange. Every parcel owner, new or old, pays the same 1% base. How do you suggest the burden falls -only- on existing parcel owners?
Did you forget that you are paying volunteer department rates(locked in via Prop 13 and AB 8) and expecting full-time department service? In actuality, what you’re trying to do is put the burden mostly on the new people while you skate.
Your lack of understanding of the facts only underscores what I see as the greatest challenge of any ballot measure. People will assume, as you have done, that the money is already there and been collected and that the problem is the county or the cities not releasing it for fire services. But that’s not the case. They will assume with just a few tweaks and some brow beating over assessments will get it done. That’s not the case either.
The educative process to explain this messed up tax revenue flow will be the biggest challenge, in my opinion. There is NOTHING on the 5 year or probably even the 10 year horizon for property tax revenues that is going to fix this. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. That is the only certainty at this point. People like yourself seem insistent on taking a band-aid to a wound that really needs a tourniquet because you don’t comprehend the extent of the problem. But the most frightening thing here is I don’t think several members of the ECCFPD Board understand the scope of the problem either.
I also hope if the district continues to propagate a new tax under false pretences, I hope it backfires. Crying danger and death to get a new tax is where the politics part is sickening.
I said you couldn’t subsidize with assessments, not that you couldn’t assess at all. You twisting words intentionally or just not reading carefully?
More reading material for you. The whole thing is good because it makes it clear why you can't just shuffle assessment monies around. The meat and potatoes portion specific to explaining the differences for you is on page 8 under the discussion section:
http://tinyurl.com/2az98v6
Friendlyfire, if you are still believing the BoS had any authority to arbitrarily change the funding, then you haven't bothered to read any of the links posted. Be an informed voter when the time comes by doing your own research. Don't take posts, including mine, as gospel. I have offered factual support for what I stated. You'll have to answer for yourself if Mr. Gonzales has done the same.
In this district we spend about $94 per person on average for fire services(see LAFCO MSR). In ConFire’s district just over the hill, it’s $197. In LA County it’s $220, Orange Co. it’s $190 and in San Diego Co. it’s $153.
If you say you’re taxed out, John, then get used to the new normal. Because you can’t run a respectable department on the cheap like that. We should be thankful we’ve got away with it for as long as we have.
" Savvy Thinking " with a sniper approach. Stick to the real issue of a solution rather than rambling to discredit people.
I asked if you knew the difference between an assessment and a special tax. You did not respond to that directly, but your comments suggest you don't.
By law set forth in Prop 218, the legalese is you cannot place an assessment on a property in an amount that is disproportionate to the special benefit conferred on the property. In simple English, you can’t subsidize with assessments. This is why you railing on about Brentwood not turning over special benefit assessments is completely off base and why your approach to using special assessments for operating budget dollars is inappropriate and probably illegal. Assessments were widely used by governing bodies in the post Prop 13 world to circumvent the 2/3 voting requirement. It got to the point of being abusive. Prop 218 was to reign that in and you want to reverse those taxpayer protections?
Assessments do have their place and they have the advantage of only needing a simple majority for approval where a special tax has to meet the 2/3 approval requirement. But for that 2/3 barrier you get a funding stream that can be more widely used to bring service levels to equity throughout the district and be within the letter of the law.
I have not read the verbage of Brentwood’s special assessment, but it is quite likely that the city keeping the control of the funds locally is in their best interest to meet those legal requirements. Using it to deploy a third person on an engine within your immediate neighborhood is much more defensible in a legal challenge than simply turning dollars over to a larger agency which may result in benefits you pay for being used elsewhere in the district.
You complain that DB West was not subjected to this assessment approach at the time the project was approved. You are correct. In light of the fact that DB West is also subjected to P-6 taxes for enhancement of police services, I think the in lieu of developer build of Station 59 was a better alternative. Perfectly legal and allowable under the law. The district gained a new asset that could have cost the taxpayers through a capex expenditure something on the order of $3M. We also avoided the stringent benefit return requirement of the law. Instead we have a station that the entire district benefits from. If you ask the Chief, as I did last week, you’ll learn that much of Station 59’s activities are move –ups. Equipment and personnel being moved into other areas of the district as emergency calls dictate. While I did not directly ask, one could safely assume on call volume alone that Brentwood and your neighborhood of Knightsen receive benefits from those move-ups. Because when your Knightsen truck moves, there are times when a DB engine will backfill. Same for Brentwood.
So you remind me again who is subsidizing whom, but do it with a little more fact based understanding.
Hopefully this will encourage you to better read up on the assessment approach that you seem so enamored with. Special taxes are a different animal. While having a higher bar to meet with a 2/3 approval of the voters, they do offer us more flexibiilty. Based on the disparity of contributions that currently exists within the district, I feel a special tax is the only viable solution for us. It will be up to the voters to ultimately decide. But based on this exchange, I hope the Board goes to great lengths to educate the public of the facts and the needs for a particular approach. Clearly someone such as yourself, having sat on a local governing agency yet still not understanding the processes, shows how important that educative process will be when the ballot measure comes forward.
I provided you a link earlier to a Legislative Analyst’s Office report. I offer you a newer one that shows how the state has attempted(though so far not been successful) to change the property tax dollar distribution models which are heavily contributing to the problem we face here. I recommend a read if you’re interested in further understanding.
www.lao.ca.gov/2000/020300_ab8/020300_ab8.html
" Savvy Thinking "
I'm pushing both assessments and a small tax. I don't think a large tax will fly. Of course maybe you can get some of your Arizona friends up here to help it. No new taxes are comfortable for anyone except the rich and famous.
The math on DB West alone would have generated 1/2 million dollars annually for a benefit assessment. I guess Cypress Lakes and Brentwood will cover you or they may just shut one of your stations down. 1/2 million to a savvy thinking guy like yourself may be nickel and dime but not to me. Maybe you can pay my extra tax too.
The best answers are not necessarily the popular ones or those without pain. I'd rather the issue was approached honestly instead of this nickel and dime, drag your feet approach the Board is taking now. I gave you the numbers. At $150/parcel, you're looking at 41 cents a day. At $200 per, it's 54 cents a day. It's like buying insurance. Seems like a waste of money until the day comes you need it.
As for affordability, again see my previous comments on reassessments. I trust you read the CCTimes since you have a big, rambling history lesson posted over there. Did you see the mention in the comments section talking about the recent Arizona sales tax increase last month? Passed by nearly a 2:1 margin. I'm guessing they have a few fixed income folks down there too. They weighed the pros and cons and the vote speaks for itself.
If memory serves you were pushing assessments rather than a special tax. Do you know the difference? Did you run the math to see if it can actually bridge the gap and if so what number did you come up with?
As for your suggestion that development is great, I think you just jacked Jeff's blood pressure a few points.
More Taxes ? That would solve everything ?
Yes, that would be simple and the easy way. However, there are many who are on fixed incomes, many who are unemployed, and many who just simply cannot afford it.
Development is great, but that is what has created this situation, it should also solve it too. The question is how.
Criminal investigation? Is that this week's conspiracy theory being floated within the email cabal or was someone in the hot sun too long without a hat?
You keep looking east for that sunset, my friend. One day it might click for you.
In the meantime, please consider setting aside your hatred of the pols long enough to propose some meaningful, well researched solutions. Time is short and the issue is too important for the community. Distracting people with poorly thought out ideas like CalFire serves no one at this point. Neither do union bashing or union busting attempts. That only displays ignorance of the facts. Lots of people looked at it over the years, yet you don't find even limited discussion or divided vote on the issue amongst officials on CalFire. That should tell you something.
I think we agree the current makeup of the Board is not helping the issue. There is no benefit to having Supervisors take seats. As part of the formation, they were tasked with moving this to an independent district with all elected seats. That means no members will be able to hold 2 elected positions. At a minimum, 7 of them will be gone. But as I said, there is no guarantee that improves the situation and in no case does it address the current emergency.
Horsepower, you say? Horsepower for what? You think 2 Supervisors have any more power to bring a ballot measure than the current group? Did you miss the point about having local control of the issue vs county, or as you have suggested, state control?
You're trying to go exactly the opposite direction of what the board is supposed to be doing and from all appearances your motive is purely to make a couple of people look bad. Again, too important an issue for playing petty politics.
By the way bob thanks for pointing out I understated the fire districts population. See, I knew deep down you agreed with me and desired to see my points have impact. Thanks for your interest and help, much appreciated.
cheers!
jb
Your homework effort on this comes up a little short. Your next stop should be to read the LAFCO MSR for a better grasp of the history of the District.
http://tinyurl.com/2bvy55d
First, if you go to page 192, you’ll learn that the estimated size of the district at the time of the report was 106,386. I have no idea where you got 45k, since Brentwood alone exceeds that.
Back up a little on page 188, you can read what happens when you mix POCs with full-time staff. That’s a local example. If you think that’s an anomaly, perhaps a more current example from the Riverside Grand Jury report I suggested earlier that you read:
http://tinyurl.com/26ncls8
Also look at page 2 of that GJ report outlining the cost increases just since 2006, which coincidently is the last time a CalFire contract was discussed in earnest as a district wide possibility here. Looks to me like they avoided a disaster by not going down that path. But if you’re prepared to suggest they would treat our much smaller district better than they treat their largest single client in the state, then I’m all ears. Remember, CalFire is a department of the state. The same state faced with a $42B, 17 month budget deficit and have crafted all sorts of underhanded “fees” to draw money out of people and the citizenry……….including adding bogus administrative fees to CalFire contracts. That doesn’t even touch on the fact you want to sacrifice local control for state control of fire.
How about some insider perspective on the viability of CalFire?:
http://tinyurl.com/25js7ta
Or how about some recent reporting on CalFire’s biggest contract in the state which discusses runaway administrative fees and what happens when you mix POCs with fulltime personnel:
http://tinyurl.com/2bx49gq
What do local officials think of their CalFire contract within the biggest service area in the state?
http://tinyurl.com/2bqj45y
What’s that? Local county officials in Riverside openly asking what happens if they don’t pay their runaway CalFire bill? Remind me, Jeff, why you think that’s worth considering?
You see, sometimes just doing it on the cheap isn’t the way to go because over the long run it bites you on the butt. Remember Southwest Water? Besides serving you up a SSO which you fully exploited in the last election, it’s a glaring example of how taking action with tunnel vision for the bottom line can kill you.
As to the revenue problem, I think Commissioner Romick explained it pretty well at the meeting. What you call “excuses” are actually facts and formulas set in place over 30 years ago. Well before the time of the elected officials who you regularly try to blame for anything and everything which seems to upset you. I recommend a read of this Legislative Analyst’s Office document:
http://tinyurl.com/29ox5ee
After you read that report, come back and explain to us how any local elected official, or state official for that matter, is supposed to just arbitrarily go around the process and the law to change the revenue models. Then maybe you’ll have at least half a leg to stand on with the rant. I suggest less flailing and arm waving and more in-depth study. Proposing ideas is good. Proposing bad ideas after you’ve ignored a pile of reading material which clearly suggests they aren’t viable is silly.
The revenue problem is clear to those of us who have read the docs. The need for a new special tax(which is earmarked) has been discussed for more than 10 years. It’s not news. New taxes are never “attractive”. But keep in mind why the budget is so dire this year………reassessments. Property taxes dropping to parcel owners. This is not just a new tax to be piled on top of everything we already pay. In many cases, it’s asking for ratepayers to give back some of the realized savings they have seen in the last 2-3 years due to those reassessments.
But even with a clear need for that new revenue stream, this Board seems oblivious. The closest they got all night was Commissioner Fraiser noting that they should hire a consultant to write a convincing ballot measure. No meaningful action was taken, they just traded a couple of comments. Where’s the needed urgency?
Chair Stonebarger, what makes you think a special election in an off-year over such a vital issue is attractive? You instead spend the Board’s time in May discussing response time goals, so you can come along in June and make decisions which obliterate any hope of meeting them. You were already outside minimum guidelines 90% of the time. Personally, I don’t think lowering the bar is the answer. Had you spent the last 2 years in a more productive effort forming the district instead of infighting over the power structure(Brentwood/Oakley), trying to hop over to ConFire who is on a more direct path to BK(Brentwood/Oakley) or trying to put the screws to the county over unrelated, disputed real estate(Oakley), then perhaps a ballot measure could have come forward before the point the patient is on life support.
Strange set of priorities over there.
But here’s the real crime; the Board didn’t spread the pain throughout the District. They put all of the cuts onto the outlying areas. Selling a ballot measure in DB or Byron or Bethel Island is not a heavy lift, especially since you're cutting us off at the knees. But that’s not where the largest voting block lies. Oakley and Brentwood do not see ANY additional response time, and in fact, Brentwood is picking up a third person in one of their stations they didn’t have before.
This is a Board that is woefully out of touch and acting in a selfish manner. Clearly Commissioners are looking out for their backyards at the expense of the long term health of the District. The vote taken on Monday poisoned the well for any ballot measure and I don’t care how slick you write the proposal. People do not respond to threats of dire consequences, which is all this measure will be doing. It’s only after they are actually experiencing real pain that they take action.
The Board needs to move forward with making these elected seats and becoming an independent services district. Then we at least get to clear the table and start with a whole new batch of people. There is no guarantee the next group will be any better, but what is certain is the current crop is not acting or cannot see what is best for the long term viability of the district as a whole.
Where BK was a 50/50 proposition a week ago, the Board’s actions taken on Monday probably puts it more like a 70% or better likelihood now.
An eight station/48 person scenario was on the table costing only $70k more for the budget year. It would not have significantly altered the “drop dead” date when the District will run out of money. It would have avoided the draconian cuts that will put tens of thousands in harm’s way by increasing their response time by 100% or better. But that option would have required selfless, district-wide vision on the part of the Brentwood and Oakley representatives.
The vote speaks for itself. 7 of the 9 Commissioners weren’t up to the task, so lives and property will be lost as a result……..just not in their neighborhoods.
No one can argue this is not a very difficult situation without an easy solution.(s) At the same time I do not believe anyone can rationally argue that letting this long running problem go on and on for this long has not made it incredibly worse and made the solution(s) so much harder to achieve. Clearly the fault for not dealing with this needs to land squarely with the two supervisors peipho and glover whose districts the problems reside in. They may not have created all the problems but they both have been in office long enough to have done more than just hand it off to ill-conceived board. They both, in my opinion, are directly responsible for making the problems much worse by allowing/promoting expansive housing development (which exacerbates the problems) without first or in parallel seeking a solution(s). It is a fact that certain residents of this fire district do and probably will continue to foot the bill for over development and poor planning elsewhere in the district. I believe these two supervisors failings are so obvious and so glaring that it should prevent them from ever being elected to another public office. In my opinion for at least the last 4 years and probably longer they were derelict in their responsibility and they need to be held at least politically accountable. Keeping people out of elected office that are known to dodge or not be capable of making difficult decisions should be the responsibility of every voter.
So what can now be done? As an outsider without all the facts/details/resources I do not profess to have the absolute answers but I can make some observations and basic suggestions. This list is not all inclusive and will no doubt be distasteful to those with primarily political motivations.
1) As stated above, seek to remove from office in the next election cycle those who failed in their job so not to repeat this saga in other critical areas.
2) Declare a moratorium on all new housing development in this fire district. Rescind all previously issued building permits until the underlying flaws in the funding structure are rectified.
3) Immediately begin a dialog with cal fire. I do not know if cal fire is part of the solution but I do know from extrapolation of their 2010-11 contract with the district that on annualized basis they can operate a 3/0 station for about $185k less than this fire district can. Extend that range of savings to 8 stations and there may be a reason to consider cal fire (remember 3/0 is the minimum standard and should be this districts ultimate objective, along with ALS, for every station). I was very disappointed to hear one of the board members from BW state at the outset words to the effect that he would not consider any action that would effect “the union”. In my opinion that statement is a breach of his fiduciary and a breach of the public trust. But I must say that I was not surprised that he said that as that clearly is the way the BOS has handled this and is a typical political maneuver by those who pander to voting blocks. I hope those words will come back to haunt that individual as the 45,000 people of this district begin to understand that the work schedule of 45 county employees comes before the safety and wellbeing of all of the rest of us. Simply stated…..without political motivation, this board should seek to study EVERY option to most cost effectively provide standard of care fire suppression and ALS coverage to the entire district. It could be easily argued that this “hands off the union” policy does more harm than good to the actual fire fighters who I do believe work hard and are unfortunately caught-up in this difficult circumstance. But that said I sat there and watched the fire fighters reactions when the question of reviving the POC program as a supplement was raised. No doubt the POC program would not be popular with the full timers, and no doubt there are plenty of reasons in a perfect world to prefer a 100% full-time fire department, but guess what….this is far from a perfect world. Speaking for myself, I would rather see a fire truck roll up with 3 people, 1 being POC, and have them get right to work vs. a 2 person truck arrive and have to largely wait for a second truck to respond and as we know that could take a very a very long time. I know it is easier to close stations/raise taxes than to put in the work needed to redevelop an effective POC program but sometimes the tough road needs to be taken, I know that is a crazy hard concept for government types and politicos to understand but please try.
4) I do not believe enough has been done to completely explore the concept of fair share contribution and balancing the inadequacy of the tax allocation. Have the Prop 13 and the decades old excuses that go with it really been explored in depth? Have the proper experts been consulted to see if some of the funding issues could be fixed by extracting more dollars from the specific areas that under pay (oakley, knightsen)? Per the county’s one documents Knightsen pays in only $177k or less and receives a $730k station. Yes. that station backs-up other stations but no one can argue with the funding disparity. Have all means of determining how to extract more dollars from oakley and knightesn been exhausted? I read BW may be withholding money…can that be independently verified? No doubt there are more of theses kind of hard questions that us outsiders do not know about.
5) Replace two of the BW/Oakley fire board members with the two BOS members who have tossed this hot potato. Instead of letting them scurry into the dark on this let’s call for them to stand up like honorable elected officials and truly represent their constituents. As it stands the unincorporated areas have no elected persons representing them and this board is fatally flawed with a pre-determined bias. Piepho and glover were elected to serve all of the people of this fire district….lets call on them to do so.
6) I was amused when the board president asked the lawyer what happens if /when they run short of funds…you would have thought the lawyers utterance of the word “bankruptcy” (BK) was the most dreaded word known to man. Today’s reality is BK can be a valuable and strategic tool to fix vexing problems that have been neglected by years of bad management and by circumstances outside of management’s control. Both of these criteria are present in what is facing this fire district. In today’s world competent management does not consider BK a death sentence or an absolute last resort. Question…..does competent management exist ant any level of government within this county?
7) Due to the long running deficiencies plus the revenue downturn, no doubt the question of revenue enhancement (i.e. a tax hike of some kind) will still exist even if every possible action listed above is acted upon. It does not take a genius to figure out a rushed ballot measure in these times has a huge chance of failure. A failure at the ballot box becomes even a bigger risk when you consider, under the plan voted on last week, the vast majority of the voters will not perceive any decrease in fire services; in fact many will perceive an increase. I believe a ballot measure may indeed fail unless a well thought out and non-political approach is taken. A funding referendum while in BK, I would think, has a much better chance of succeeding than one outside of BK. Sure politicos would have to take a hit for getting us to that point but what is more important a few political dings or the life and well being of 45,000 people…. I guess I should stop asking stupid questions.
You may remember Brentwood gave $600K annually for a third firefighter. The real question is, was that funding givin (so they say out of thier general fund) or is that funding entitled to go to ECCFD ? Next is, why have they stopped passing those funds ? They didn't stop collecting those special assessment fees !!
The tax rate for Bethel Island is the highest of all the far east county communities with Oakley the lowest.
This commission needs to immediately require ALL New Construction to join a benefit assessment for fire. I do not think a new tax will pass as it needs a vote of the people. However, a benefit assessment does not need a vote. It can become a condition of approval for construction.
Good luck in getting any real straight answers from Brentwood re the benefit assessment. That would be admitting to tax diversion.
Also, why does ECCFD own all the fire stations EXCEPT the ones in Brentwood. The city owns them. The ownership for those stations should be turned over to the District they were built and intended for.
Since a large portion of the commission is Brentwood, the ECCFPD will continue to get the bottom of Brentwoods trash barrel.
Thanks again Mary Piepho
I suppose the threats of closures, possible deaths due to lack of funding, and other horror stories will be the pre amble for a new tax proposal.
As it stands I believe the City of Brentwood owes ECCFPD $ 600,000 per year since they pulled that funding of which I believe was collected through special benefit assessment areas.
This comes out to about $ 3,000,000,00 Million.
I hope that if they must shut down any station, that they require the BCs to move in and save another 50K in renting the Office space downtown that should have been terminated years ago.
Unfortunately our Supervisors set the stage for Brentwood to control the District and turned the keys over just before the brick wall is about to be hit. Maybe the balance of commissioners will force Brentwood to come clean by turning over the station deeds and a portion of the benefit assessment taxes collected for fire.
I attended the meeting on the 7th, just like many of my neighbors. It was obvious to me from the start, DB Station 58 was headed for closure. As far as I'm concerned, the meeting was merely a formality. Brockman sat there with a bored look on his face and he made it crystal clear, that his mind was made up long before he parked his car. There was no point in surrounding him with facts.
If you look at the surrounding areas, Brentwood sits right in the middle, between Antioch and Oakley on one side and Discovery Bay, Knightson and Byron on the other side. There is absolutely no reason to close Bethel Island and Discovery Bay Station 58, while leaving all Brentwood stations operational. If you close one of Brentwood's stations, they would still have more than enough coverage from their remaining operations, along with coverage right next door on both sides.
I have to laugh at the way our county supervisors decided to appoint the fire board. Four representatives from Brentwood? Did you think for a moment that any station in Brentwood was in danger of being closed? What a great campaign speech this will make for Mr. Stonebarger, should he decide to run for mayor of Brentwood. He can tell voters, that he may have decimated the fire departments of his neighboring communities, but he kept all the stations in Brentwood in tact.
First measure F and now this! I hope the fine residents of Brentwood are smart enough to show their appreciation to Mr Stonebarger and Mr. Brockman at the next election, when they show them both the door..
mark simon
discovery bay