The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District is making a serious miscalculation if it fails to include a sunset clause in its final ballot language at its upcoming special meeting on Feb. 27. In what is already a long shot to pass, the district is further handicapping itself and public safety by moving forward with a tax in perpetuity.
In what was being dubbed as a “straw poll” vote by the district in a 6-3 vote, the board directed staff to leave out a sunset clause by citing a potential budget deficit in year 11 – based off projections. Just because it’s a prediction doesn’t necessarily mean it’s correct. Just to show you how predictions work, I predict prices will skyrocket and the board will need more than $197 (plus annual 3-percent increase) in 10 years – the board has just handicapped future boards from requesting more funds from voters.
This board is now locking in future boards to this tax. It’s locking residents into this tax. The worst part is: no resident will be able to have a say or the ability to check and balance what the district is doing with our parcel tax funds every 10 years. Quite frankly, it’s irresponsible.
Rather than worrying about projections in year 11, this board should be worrying about July, 2012 and doing everything in its power to gain support from voters – you do not do that by attempting to pass a tax that never goes away. By offering a sunset inclusion, it shows a much-needed good faith effort to the taxpayers.
In the long run, the board actually benefits with a sunset clause because it buys them 10 years to solve this problem while being able to continue services that are more than adequate. It also allows for the economy to improve and additional tax money to be generated with growth.
Without the sunset clause, the board appears to want this parcel tax to fail, which accommodates other plans not yet known to the public. The board needs to be giving our firefighters a fighting chance on this tax, and the only way to do that is to protect the taxpayer with a sunset.
This issue is much more complex than firefighter layoffs and stations shut down; it’s about protecting the taxpayer by keeping fire stations open. Meaning: they need to protect our insurance rates from skyrocketing by providing the best possible language to ensure passage of this parcel tax to keep services at least where they are today.
When the Sunrise Station closed on Morgan Territory Road, Kevin Keeler wrote an opinion piece to another paper that his insurance premium jumped from $500 per year to just under $5,000 – a 1,000-percent increase. Others had similar stories of rate increases. Under a three-station model, it’s a fact no one will be exempt from a rate increase. If you unfortunately become rated a 10+ by ISO, your mortgage is immediately due – don’t believe me, just ask the three Morgan Territory residents!
In what will be your final chance to be heard on this parcel tax, I would encourage citizens of East County to show up to the special meeting on Feb. 27 and request a sunset clause be included or promise to fight against this tax. I am a big supporter of giving our firefighters the tools to service our community, but not with an open checkbook. There must be checks and balances written in the final ballot language.
I urge the board to reconsider its straw poll and do the right thing by including a sunset.
Mike Burkholder, Oakley
Your rebuttal is missing some “real life” information. Morgan territory folks will be paying double taxes. One for the State AND one for us if they vote yes. You also missed the part of the document (which I knew you would) that states;
State Farm and other insurance companies have moved away from ISO rating. State Farm is the nation’s largest insurer of residential property and STOPPED USING ISO RATING in 2000.
I suggest people get State Farm Ins. like me. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. :-)
On the electorate side with Brentwood and the Fire Commission, that is another Mary Piepho blunder to pass her responsibility off to someone else. The district should have gone through the complete LAFCO process and be recognized as independent. When there was not enough time before the district ran out of money, she dumped it on someone else. It is time to throw it back to her to fix her screw ups over the past seven years.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/pdf/efop/efo39907.pdf
It seems counter-intuitive at first, but it does make sense when one considers the loss drivers and ratios involved in calculating premiums.
Whether, or how, the findings in this report can be related to the potential failure of the proposed tax has not been discussed by the ECCFPD. I expect, however, that if failure of the tax would necessarily bring huge increases in insurance premiums the district would be inclined to quantify and communicate this information in one of their glossy mailings.
Question: Will the failure of the tax necessarily result in huge property/casualty insurance rate increases?
And has the district actually committed to a three station model if the tax fails?
Or is that just what they are saying to sway the voters?
As a Discovery Bay homeowner I do not expect will be reduced if the tax fails. In fact, I think it is possible that the QRV may be removed if the tax succeeds which would certainly reduce the life support services we currently enjoy.
Remember, the District has already closed two of the three stations in our community. At the time of that decision they went on the record as saying they needed to take this "draconian" action to show us they were serious. Ok, point taken. Now are we supposed to believe they can take away anything else?
And have our insurance rates gone up? Not mine...
This is a county (Board of Supervisors) issue and the $11MILLION in unfunded pension liability should be addressed by them. What if the District is found to be insolvent? What responsibility will the County have?
We know LAFCO has not declared the District is "independent" from Contra Costa County. What EXACTLY does that mean? Who should be left holding the bag for the huge debt the COUNTY and the DISTRICT have created? Each parcel holder, the County, or the taxpayers in the district?
Is it reasonable, fair, or legal for the voters (rather that the parcel holders themselves) to decide if, and how much, the parcel holders should pay?
Why should a 1,000 bed residence apartment building be assessed the same $197 parcel tax as a 400 square foot dirt lot that is never going to be developed? And should that property have 1,000 votes versus the single vote that the 400 square foot dirt parcel can cast?
These questions have been asked of the District, but they have not been answered.
So here's a chance for Chief Henderson or any member of the Board to clarify the record and respond. I believe the Chief is a good man caught in a tough situation. Unfortunately, it appears the board is controlled by elected Brentwood city officials who answer to their electorate (Brentwood voters) rather than the District as a whole, which is exactly why LAFCO has not found the District to be independent.
I believe the answers (or lack thereof) to these questions and concerns will help many people decide how strongly they will either support or oppose the tax.
Don Flint
Clearly you are ignoring Appendix B (which I knew you would) and ignoring "real life" on Morgan Territory Road where it did effect those residents and 1 business that was shut down until they found an insurer who would cover them.
It should also be noted that Monterrey uses 3 stations to cover 125 miles--East County would use 3-stations to cover 250 miles water. Huge difference.
A parcel is a parcel, regardless of size. How hard is that to understand?
Appendix B clearly states:
1. Dillenback & LoManto Insurance Agency, Inc. uses ISO to determine rates
2. Farmers Insurance of Marina California uses ISO rates to determine rates.
3. Western Mutual Insurance Company does not use ISO to determine rates.
Although we can disagree on pieces, I believe you to be spot on in regards to Brentwood answering to their electorate as opposed to the ENTIRE district--if that is the case, they should not be serving on this board.
Your rebuttal is missing some “real life” information. Morgan territory folks will be paying double taxes. One for the State AND one for us if they vote yes. You also missed the part of the document (which I knew you would) that states;
State Farm and other insurance companies have moved away from ISO rating. State Farm is the nation’s largest insurer of residential property and STOPPED USING ISO RATING in 2000.
I suggest people get State Farm Ins. like me. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. :-)
On the electorate side with Brentwood and the Fire Commission, that is another Mary Piepho blunder to pass her responsibility off to someone else. The district should have gone through the complete LAFCO process and be recognized as independent. When there was not enough time before the district ran out of money, she dumped it on someone else. It is time to throw it back to her to fix her screw ups over the past seven years.
If you think closing more stations will lower or keep your insurance premiums the same than you are a fool.
This has nothing to do with Mary Piepho so why are you even bringing the BOS into this discussion on this parcel tax? She and the BOS are a non issue for Mondays meeting. If you call Piepho out, call them all out as a BOARD, not a single person. Stop trying to rewrite history.
Without the sunset clause, the board appears to want this parcel tax to fail, which accommodates other plans not yet known to the public.
You have a good point here. The district is currently 11 million dollars indebted to the pension fund. It has less than one million in the bank. The District is claiming they are an independent district, maybe bankruptcy is the way. File for chapter, let Brentwood form its own department and the rest merge to Con Fire. The way this tax is written it will probably fail. You never know though until the voters speak.