After discussing feedback the district has received in a series of meetings to inform the public about the details of the measure proposed for the June ballot, the board chose not to include an automatic end of the tax, an element mentioned by several members of the public. In a 6-3 straw poll vote at its Monday meeting, the board decided to emphasize the annual review already built into the tax rather than add a sunset clause that could leave the district in the same financial shape it is now.
Directors Jim Frazier and Kevin Romick of Oakley were joined by Clayton’s Cheryl Morgan in saying they preferred the sunset clause because they’re concerned the tax would not pass without it. Directors Pat Anderson (Oakley), Joel Bryant, Steve Barr, Erick Stonebarger and Bob Brockman (Brentwood) and Robert Kenny (Bethel Island) opposed the sunset clause.
“We know there will be an $11 million deficit in year 11 if the tax goes away,” said Director Steve Barr of Brentwood. “We’ll be right back in the same position we are now, and that’s not viable.”
Frazier, however, believes that should the tax not pass, the viability deficiency would kick in when district reserves are exhausted in June. He said the sunset clause had been a priority for attendees at the two Oakley community meetings he had attended, and doubted that an open-ended tax would garner the two-thirds majority needed for passage. He preferred that the tax automatically end after 10 years, and that the district go back to the voters to either extend or retract the levy.
Romick agreed, saying, “If we (the district board) are doing our jobs, the public will be able to see that.”
The decision came as the board modified the tax plan according to additional input gathered at community meetings. The tax will now increase annually by a maximum of 3 percent or the Consumer Price Index, whichever is lower (it had been at 5 percent). The board also examined the district’s finances through a 10-year window. Earlier models had been limited to five years due to economic uncertainties, especially the recovery of property values whose recent plunge has left the ECCFPD more than $2 million short each year.
Also added into the equation is the full cost of replacing equipment and other capital improvement costs such as station repairs. As of now, the district budget reserve policy accounts for only a portion of the approximate $1.2 million needed annually.
The new 10-year model shows that even with revenue the new tax would provide, the district will spend more than it receives beginning in year five.
“I’m not happy to see red again, but we will have alternatives at that point,” said Director Pat Anderson of Oakley. For example, she said, adjustments could be made to the rate at which reserves are accumulated once they have had the first few years of tax revenue to refill the nearly depleted coffers.
Other directors expressed concern that if property values recover faster than expected or new revenue begins to flow from growth or the completion of the power plant planned for Oakley, the tax might no longer be needed. The district financial model now assumes property taxes will decline an additional 2 percent the first year, stay flat for four years, then begin rising at a rate of 2 percent per year.
As of now, the proposed measure calls for the tax rate to be set annually by the board. If it passes, the board can set the level anywhere between $0 and its cap, $197 plus a maximum cost-of-living increase of 3 percent. Morgan said the language of the measure should emphasize the annual review, which would include public hearings.
“We have to make it clear that the board can always take (the tax amount) down” if the district’s financial picture improves more quickly than forecast, she said.
The board will hold a special public meeting on Feb. 27 to finalize the measure, ECCFPD Chief Hugh Henderson said. A sunset clause could still be added at that point if the board should decide to do so. The proposed measure must be approved by the board and filed with the county by March 5 for the district to begin receiving money this year.
Meanwhile, the district will continue to gather public input at its community meetings. The next one is scheduled for Thursday, Feb. 16 at 6:30 p.m. in the Brentwood City Council Chambers.
In other business, the Board finalized its response "emphatically" disagreeing with findings of a December Grand Jury report saying fire service in East County is "adequate." To view the report, click here.
All the business about the medical skills is of no value as we have the private firms supplying the service now.
All of the Volunteers I have ever known wanted to become regulars because of the wages and benefits. It is still true.
The work is dangerous. I am a mining engineer and the work of a fire fighter is much safer than mining, roughly 63% safer. Miner’s incomes and benefits are only a shadow compared to the Fire Fighter.
Most Fire Fighters retire at close to or above their regular pay. They also draw full benefits, medical etc. Most go to another district and go back to work. DOUBLE DIPPING.
When a miner retires that’s it. His retirement is that of anyone else in the industrial world.
The pay scale bantered about as the average for our local Fire Fighters are pure fiction. Not one that I know is even close to that pay level. The average of those men is roughly $100K per year plus overtime. If a man starts with the district without credit for experience he may make the basic $50K. I have not heard of that happening.
I believe it is time for the district to review all of the pay scales and benefits, including retirement of all of the personel employed. How about bringing the pay scales for our public servants into line with the rest of the community
I must have made a mistake by becoming a profesional engineer.
#1: I'm being ask to vote for a tax that I would be paying to keep stations open? Well, here comes my selfishness, I chose to live in Brentwood, not the out skirts of Brentwood. Why would I pay an extra tax to keep outlining stations open when I didn't choose to live out there!? This tax should be charged to those people not the ones who chose to live within the city limits! Or change the staffing to volunteer shifts with a stipend per shift. Once the economy turns then we can talk about reopening with a 3 man engine with full wages.
#2: It's bogus because the ECCFPD is a BLS fire district with a private ambulance company providing the ALS service. There is zero reason to "attract qualified paramedics, who will be able to provide advanced life support on scene", when we are already getting a ALS ambulance to the scene of the call. Don't try and tell me that "we need paramedics" because we all know it's over kill, not cost effective and a waste of money!!!!!! Ever heard, "too many chiefs, not enough indians"? Yah, trust me that's what will happen if the ECCFPD goes ALS! Besides, BLS before ALS!! The AHA now says BLS CPR is more effective then ALS interventions!
Let's break it down: What's the cost to keep the stations open and not change wages, not change EMS status (BLS is sufficient!!), and run a 2-3 man engine company? NFPA says it's effective so why does the ECCFPD want to add personnel/paramedics? GREED! The fire service has been over paid for years!! It's always been about the money and what their "brothers/sisters" in the neighboring department are getting paid, who get's a better contract. Blah blah blah! What's the budget look like without changing anything? That's what they should be looking at, NOT adding personnel and taxes and wages. Let's work on how to operate safely and effectively in our current staffing levels. My income has changed along with probably every citizen (other then ECCFPD employees) and we've had to make adjustments. Now is not the time to even have a thought of increasing staffing levels, adding paramedics when you can't justify it, or increasing taxes! Just shows your true colors! I'm not sold on this tax nor will I ever be, the ECCFPD would probably save money if they went to the minimum recommendations of the NFPA across the board to run a safe and effective fire district for this current economy. How about canceling the gardeners and having the crews do the yard work? We all know they're not running 10,000 calls a year per station! How about not shopping on duty, is it that hard to shop the night before your shift? All driving around town is doing is wasting tax money!
Now, if you want to raise taxes for training facilities, Thermal imaging cameras, new turnouts/PPE, etc. etc. etc. then let's talk but I'm, not buying this tax increase and I urge whoever reads this to truly think about it before voting. There are plenty of things that can be cut, readjusted, researched and changed before the ECCFPD will get my vote. Show me you've tried everything else before coming to me with this BOGUS TAX!!!
I am happy to see someone else finally recognizing that ALS fire engines are not necessary when you have ALS ambulances, and in fact (ALS fire engine) are being shown more and more to actually be detrimental to patient outcome. Throwing more and more paramedics into a system is not the answer to improving an EMS system.
I still find it amusing that our fire departments in this country have wedged their way into being such a large part of the EMS (emergency MEDICAL services) system instead of simply sticking to their originally intended purpose, fire protection services. The only reason they are so intent on providing EMS response is so they can justify their inflated service structures. Look at how many actual fire calls they run, then tell me if that is all they responded to how could they exist at the level they do today? Heck even throw in the calls where their tools are (actually) needed for extrication, etc. and it still it equates to a very small number.
A fire engine crew with some basic medical training (BLS) does fulfill a role now, but it doesn't mean that BLS role they fulfill in the EMS system is best suited to be handled by a fire engine. Look up two tiered EMS systems that some other areas run (even on a national level with the UK, NZ, Scotland and Australia which are leaps and bounds beyond our level of EMS system) and you'll see that when it comes down to the management of the EMS system and the well being long term outcome of the patient (which is what it's all about) that they are way more effective.
I am disgusted by the point that not enough of my taxes are going to the fire department and that's why you need to tax me more. Excuse me, my property taxes are already significantly higher then neighboring cities, including those covered by the Contra Costa Fire District, now you are asking me to pay even more? If you aren't getting the per dollar reimbursement you want off my 1% countywide tax then work on fixing and adjusting that. People yell and scream it's tied to prop 13, I don't care. If it's broken fix it, and I mean fix it the right way. Just adding another tax and not fixing the fundamental problem is not the right way.
Notice the Emergency Medical Tax & The Storm Water tax. This is over and above the regular taxes and all the fees we pay, yet we will be asked again this year to pay again on top of these. Only this time, the new taxes if passed will have a yearly increase for ever. The fire tax will have an increase clause three times higher than prop 13 percentages with automatic increases.
Time to create a new reorganized county fire district that also transports for medicals.
CC-FED STRMWTR FEE DB (925) 313-2312 $30.00
MOSQUITO & VECTOR DV (925) 867-3400 $11.88
EMERGENCY MED B DY (925) 646-4690 $10.00
DISCO BAY WST PRKG F2 (925) 313-2286 $10.00
TOWN-DISCOVERY BAY GU (925) 634-1131 $690.96
EBRPD-E COUNTY LLD IY (800) 676-7516 $19.70
SERV AREA L-100 LO (925) 313-2286 $14.94
LL-2 Z61 DISCO BAY M7 (925) 313-2286 $190.00
S/A P-6 Z 502 OI (925) 335-1526 $244.04
TOTAL SPECIAL TAXES & ASSESSMENTS $1,221.52
1%COUNTYWIDE TAX 1.0000 $2,660.00
BART 0.0041 $10.90
EAST BAY REG PK BD 0.0071 $18.89
LIBERTY HI BD 2001 0.0147 $39.10
LIBERTY BOND 88 0.0079 $21.01
LIBERTY BOND 94 0.0160 $42.56
BYRON ELEM 2006BND 0.0345 $91.77
COMM COLL 2002 BND 0.0049 $13.04
COMM COLL 2006 BND 0.0095 $25.27
TOTAL AD VALOREM TAXES 1.0987 $2,922.54
ADD: SPECIAL TAXES & ASSESSMENTS $1,221.52
DELINQUENT PENALTY $207.20
DELINQUENT COST $0.00
LESS: PAYMENTS RECEIVED $0.00
We have too many taxes and fees levied upon us without our direct consent. If this one is necessary, let them make the argument now and again 10 years from now.
You are mistaken. The district took a straw vote, a common way to determine what direction a body should go when things are not unanimous. On Monday, each director weighed in with their opinion, yes, but it was not by roll call, which involves the clerk of the board calling each name, and then registering each response. That didn't happen.
Another thing that shows this was an informal vote is that there was no motion, no second, no discussion period following the motion/second and prior to the vote as is required in formal votes.
Lastly, the straw vote was not, as you say, "sneaked in" to the discussion. It was appropriately a part of item D2, which was "Review Draft Ordinance and Resolution for Proposed Parcel Tax and Scheduling a Special Meeting to Consider Adoption." The straw vote passed no ordinance or resolution, it was part of the discussion that is shaping the resolution/ordinance that the board will formally vote on Feb. 27. If it's approved by the board, then the voters will vote on it on June 5.
I am referring to the comment made in this article; "We know there will be an $11,000,000.00 million deficit in year 11 if the tax goes away"
The report published states there will be an $11,823,824.00 million dollar surplus in year 5. This is shown with three people Engine Company including ALS.
That means from year 5 to year 11 this district will spend $22,800,000.00 million dollars over and above the normal income it gets from property taxes, etc.?
That’s like eight newly constructed stations with full crews added in those 6 years without a dime of developer money and no project prop 13 tax increases while keeping the stations we have. The math does not add up.
It really doesn't matter anyway. I have never heard of a non ending escalating parcel tax with no sunset clause that has passed. With all the other taxes proposed this year it's a long shot written this way.
You cannot worry about nearly a $12 million deficit in year 11 if you cannot even make it past July 2012.
I would encourage all to come to the Feb. 27 meeting and demand a sunset clause be included.
The 10-year projections, calculated with the lower 3% maximum yearly increase, can be seen attached to the staff report for Monday's meeting. It shows where when the money will be spent. Be sure to look at the bottom of the spread sheet to see the assumptions it is based on.
There are also spread sheets showing forecast salary and benefit increases, and one for increases other than salary and expenses.
Here's a link to the report:
http://www.eccfpd.org/assets/documents/BoardPacketFeb62012.pdf
I found it and copied it. I also pulled out the original "Anticipated Service Model" or ASM with the 5% in it. The only difference from 5% to 3% from year 5 to year 11 is $791,234.00 dollars, not $11,000,000.00 dollars. As I compared line items I noticed in year 5 of the original ASM the beginning balance is 11.5 million plus our proposed added tax of an additional 10.6 million along with some other income.
When I go to the recent ASM for some reason there is a 5.2 million dollar difference in the very same beginning fund balance. The personnel or station quantity is the same. This tells me either there may be an error on the original entry or there may be an error on this newer entry. This is probably why the comment was made about an 11 million deficit in year 11. Maybe the projected assumptions between the first ASM and the second one need to be brought up. I do not want to speculate on where that 5.2 million vanished to.