On Tuesday, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved a plan by a local Task Force to assist the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District.
After a short presentation by Brentwood City Manager Gus Vina and ECCFPD Chief Hugh Henderson, the Board approved a resolution while simultaneously adding a series of conditions for the ECCFPD Board to now approve on December 7.
Under the plan, a fourth fire station would re-open in Knightsen per the direction of the Board of Supervisors as a condition for the county to contribute $311,617 to the $2.33 million plan for a period of 16-months as a stop-gap to allow the District to go for a revenue enhancement.
Supervisor Mary Piepho requested the following conditions of approval of the funds:
- ECCFPD would pursue independence special district through LAFCO
- ECCFPD would move to an elected fire board
- ECCFPD would seek a name change
- ECCFPD would create an citizens oversight committee to oversee new funds
- ECCFPD would accept the Chiefs recommendation to open 4th station in Knightsen
Previously, the cities of Brentwood ($666,000) and Oakley ($382,202) approved a recommendation by the Task Force without conditions.
Supervisor Piepho highlighted she previously spoke at the ECCFPD fire board meeting after the last tax failure encouraging the Board to keep the Discovery Bay station open.
“At that meeting, I made a comment because many consider the fire districts financial challenge to be those of the entire county and I stated that I disagreed with that. The county does not have a responsibility to provide a fire protection district revenue, but we do have a role in this. If the cities came together and funded on a per-capita base that I would bring to my board that would equal the counties role and participation on a short term basis,” said Piepho. “The plan was created based on calls for service and I feel that is an appropriate share the cost burden between the two cities and the county.”
Contra Costa County Fire Chief Jeff Carman stated their official stance is they are 100% in support of this plan.
“The system you have in place in East County is not sustainable,” said Carman. “It is not sustainable for the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District to use our resources at the rate they are using them today. We have done many things over the two-years I have been here to try and stop gap the loss they have in East County but its difficult for us in a very busy battalion to provide the resources to them like we do. The hazard, or concern, is this is not understood by the citizens as a stop-gap measure. This is not a continuous process, this will not allow ECCFPD to continue into the future, its something to get them to the ballot. I think that needs to be understood by the citizens.”
Carmen highlighted that they support the recommendation, but that the Executive Chiefs can no longer continue to support ECCPFD with fire aid resources and encourage the Board and others to get behind a ballot measure to help them move forward into perpetuity.
Supervisor Piepho asked Chief Henderson about the 4th station and what station he would recommend be open. Chief Henderson said in a 4-staiton model, the station to be open would be Knightsen (Station 94).
“That balances out the District taking care of all the areas and hits areas hardest it’s with the longest response times. We do have response times in the district that are over 15-minutes every month on Bethel Island area so that would improve responses into eastern and northern Brentwood and taking care of southern Oakley,” stated Henderson.
Piepho then asked Henderson what the “optimal” number of stations would be.
Chief Henderson replied that when we are done with the Master Plan, you will see a number between 10-to-12 stations. He noted that there has been over 60-times the District has not had any resources available.
Piepho explained that the two failed ballot measures were not supported by the public and asked what had now changed?
She answered her own question saying that response times are real and not threats and no longer perceived as threats, insurance rates have increased dramatically and homes are being dropped by insurance companies. She also said she sees an effort now by the community through the grassroots trying to find a solution and help which had not been there in the past.
Piepho then made requests that she hoped her board could support if they were to provided money to the ECCFPD. She read the three recommendations, but wanted to add more.
“If this board approves this funding appropriation that the ECCFPD, that they pursue independence special district through LAFCO,” said Piepho.
She said this would give voters more control on the status of leadership
She then requested a name change away from the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District which she says implies directly that the county is responsible for the status of the District which is not accurate.
“I believe the name creates a misnomer and confusion that I would suggest a name change that it be removed,” stated Piepho. “I am not going to get into naming it, I am just going to ask that the name change be considered by the governing board to something more specific and more representative.”
She also requested, that through LAFCO, there be an elected governing body.
“The voters have the ability to elected those that they want to represent them to make these important decisions and to provide local governance for their local fire protection district,” said Piepho.
Piepho then requested if a funding mechanism moves forward, that there be a citizens oversight committee created for overview of the new funds.
Lastly, she requested the Board support the fire chiefs recommendation for a fourth station that if its open, it be in Knightsen to best serve the operations of the District.
“I believe these recommendations to be common sense. They help build trust within the communities that will be asked to provide increased funding to the district and move it into the 21s century and out of the 18th,” said Piepho.
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff questioned Piepho saying she thought they were an Independent District.
Piepho replied they were a Dependent District because they were Dependent on the Board of Supervisors and that they created the governing Board in existence now, but they do not elect their governing body—an elected board would create the Independent status.
Mitchoff further asked Piepho if she was asking the ECCFPD at the December 7th meeting to accept these conditions. She highlighted her concerns about putting conditions on the funds at this time due to a timeline, but supported the recommendations.
Piepho stated she appreciated Mitchoffs concerns but stated these commendations should have been done 8-years ago.
“Unfortunately, many of these conditions were part of the original transference to the current governing body and they were not carried through. So this is the only time we will have any leverage for this body to put on that body in order to get them moving forward,” explained Piepho. “They should have moved forward 8-years ago, 7-years ago, 6-years ago, 5-years ago, 4-years ago, 3-years ago, 2-years ago, so its important. It’s important to lay the ground work for the public to have engagement and responsibility in the leadership, governance and the decisions be made so that they can hopefully begin to trust a funding mechanism. It’s part of the whole package.”
Supervisor John Gioia highlighted the issue with the ECCFPD has to do with Prop 13 and how all the fire districts in the County get different percentages based on unequal allocations.
Supervisor Piepho explained that is true, but they all pay that same “dollar”.
“The problem with the taxpayer is that they are still paying that same dollar in assessment evaluation and their dollar has been apportioned differently in each community and in this community its apportioned very low but they are still paying that same dollar and that is part of this education and challenge and getting the public to understand why it’s different and what the tools and resources are to fix it,” said Piepho.
Gioia noted that Piepho was correct and that was the point he wanted to make was they are paying the same, but their allocations to areas are different because of the way it was set in 1978.
Brentwood Councilman Erick Stonebarger attended the meeting as a citizen and spoke in public comments thanking the Task Force calling the process frustrating and difficult over the years.
“We are underfunded as a fire district, we talked about the 6 or 7 cents we get as a district. The taxpayer is frustrated because they pay that same $1 but it just gets a different allocation. Oakley supported this on a 5-0 vote, Brentwood supported this on a 5-0 vote, I am here asking you to support it to help us get it to the next step,” said Stonebarger.
He noted that as a public official, his number one priority is public safety saying they need additional revenue as they have failed twice at getting it saying they are not good communicators. He also shared his support of moving to an elected board.
“We need to get to an elected board whether we do it prior to enhanced revenue or in conjunction of the enhanced revenue, it doesn’t really matter to me as long as we get enhanced revenue,” said Stonebarger. “We don’t want to sit up there and appoint personnel up there, we want to get it to an elected board, that is the cleanest way to represent the district as a whole.”
Mitchoff thanked the Task Force calling it not an easy task.
“I want to make sure our public understand that these dollars are not being taken away from other programs, we receive $12 million in a refund from the State of California on unfunded mandates that had not been paid for several years. We have not been paid for several years, but out of that $12 million, that is where this $311,000 is coming from,” said Mitchoff. “It’s important for the public to know its not being taken away from another program.”
Mitchoff highlighted she recognized the residents of the fire district do pay the same dollar, but there were some unintended consequences of Proposition 13.
“I’ve never been a big proponent of the repercussions of Prop 13. In 1978, we have been dealing with this for 37 years, we needed a major tax revolution and it happened but there were many unintended consequences. I believe the authors recognized that,” explained Mitchoff. “The concept was if you stay in your home you weren’t going to have these unknown tax bills going up and down and they can only go up by a certain percentage, but there was a thought that people would move on and that homes would turn over and the base would change by appraised value and selling value. That did not happen for a variety of reasons and no one could have foreseen that. But again, as much as all of us have benefited from Prop 13, when the rates went down and we are now coming back, unfortunately there are communities like mine in Pleasant Hill that are living with the downside of Prop13.”
Mitchoff noted that Pleasant Hill and Orinda both choose different tax mechanisms and therefore did not benefit from Prop 13.
“I very much sympathize with the residents of East Contra Costa County because we too are paying the same tax dollar but they are divvied up differently. That being said, I’ve been seeing this on social media, but I need to say that it serves no purpose for other jurisdictions to criticize the county and other special districts over this allocation of Prop 13 dollars ad going forward this is a great opportunity to provide that education to the public,” said Mitchoff. “We are faced with what is, is, the downside is we are living with what was created within the funding formulas and that being what it is, and I don’t see Prop 13 changing in Sacramento anytime soon, we need to work to find solutions rather than criticizing the different agencies. The concept is the county takes more than its fair share and that is simply not true. Should the Board of Supervisors approve this today, we are demonstrating we are dedicated to doing our part in assisting the funding for a fourth station and improve a fourth station.”
She noted that she would support the temporary stop gap funding solution because other agencies cannot keep assisting East Contra Costa Fire because they also have seen loses.
Supervisor Candace Andersen stated she cared deeply about the state of fire throughout the county while recognizing the domino effect if one agency can’t defend their own territory, however, while understanding the desire and need calling it a serious situation she could not support the motion.
“I am not ready today to support the first or third recommendation until we have a clear path to sustainability. This is something I have gone back and forth on talking to many people,” explained Andersen. “ I am not convinced voters will support another ballot measure. They rejected the one earlier this year. These were not close votes, even Brentwood was only 54% which is nowhere near the 2/3 needed to pass a tax.”
She noted that perhaps response times being impacted, insurance rates going up or ability to get insurance will have an impact but to see a plan if the District could be run more efficiently, cost recovery and alternatives.
“I am concerned with us providing one-time money that voters will think there will always be someone there who will continue to bail them out because someone has it the past whether it be a SAFER Grant, the county coming forward, if this was a loan, it would be a different factor from my standpoint,” said Andersen. “My concern is that we have committed resources within the county and even though I recognize this funding would come from our $12 million that, we have many other competing needs. We have strong demands from the Sheriff’s Department. Although $300,000 plus is not a lot of money, that would certainly go a long way to helping retain existing deputies. We have other things pending that may shed more light on solutions.”
Anderson highlighted her biggest “stumbling block” was the precedent it sets.
“When I first came on the board three years ago, we refused to give our own fire district the money they needed so we did not have to close fire stations and we were very clear that we were only going to handle county funding through our general fund,” said Anderson.
She stated she could not justify this onetime expense.
Supervisor Federal Glover stated that 16-years later they are still battling the sam fight.
“Mary I appreciate you have made some amendments to this so that we can clean up some of those things that were not cleaned up when we initially did this work,” said Glover. “Yes, this could be precedence setting but in terms of public safety whether you are talking about police, AMR or fire system they all lock arms and go hand in hand. We cannot not get involved in this issue because it has an impact countywide. We need to try to do this and I do agree this needs to be one-time money. We have to find a sustainable solution to how we deal with these issues. Labeling it as one-time money and don’t come back will allow the task force, who I believe have done good work, and who have stepped outside the box to find that sustainable solution has to continue its work and make it happen.”
Glover further highlighted that while East Contra Costa residents have lives in danger with below fire coverage, it also creates a situation that impacts his district because CONFIRE engines are in East county which now put Contra Costa fire lives at risk.
Supervisor Mitchoff highlighted that when comparing East Contra Costa Fire to Rodeo-Hercules that East County has paid its bills and kept up to date with payments while living within their means. Rodeo-Hercules has not done that and if they came to the Board for operational money, it would be hard to support.
“I can’t sit here with the information I know cannot recognize or reward an organization who has not run themselves well financially not speaking of the firefighters,” said Mitchoff. “East County has which is why I believe this will be one time money and we are not giving them money to catch up on payments that have not been made, we are giving them money, if this passes, for strictly operational purposes with the message loud and clear… this is onetime money.”
Supervisor Piepho clarified earlier statements made by Supervisor Andersen saying that when the stations were closing, she told the District she would become a partner and help in the discussion.
“The two cities, who are the primary population of area served have stood up and said we are putting our dollars on the table, will you be a partner with us. If the county does not in this relationship, those dollars go away,” explained Piepho. “It’s an all-in or one out it all falls apart. I do not want to have that responsibility of service to the public on this body.”
Piepho highlighted this District is living within its means stating Chief Henderson does the job of five individuals and paying its bills while functioning at a level which the revenue is funding, but the point was the revenue is not sufficient to meet the needs of public safety in the District.
“Operations cannot be run more efficiently than what is currently being operated in East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District,” stated Piepho. “Should the funding mechanism not move forward next year, should it not be successful, then I think everyone will have a rational history and rational background behind this that we did everything we could to ensure public safety and at the end of the day it’s in the public’s hand.”
Supervisor Gioia stated what is new is that the Cities of Brentwood and Oakley have stepped forward putting their money where there mouths are.
“What is new here is that we have not had this level of involvement in a serious way… folks were on a different page. It seems now folks are getting on the same page,” said Gioia. “To me, the modest investment of about $300,000 to move forward is a really good thing because we are paying a price within our own fire district by having this lower level of service at an adjacent fire district.”
Gioia noted that the taxpayers who do not live in East County are also getting a benefit due to auto aid and mutual aid in picking up slack which impacts everyone. He also referenced Supervisor Andersen’s comments about precedence but that each time they get to make the decision as each situation is different.
“In this case, this fire district gets half of what CONFIRE gets on the 1%. That is what makes this very unique. Other fire districts get much higher help,” said Gioia. “Supervisor Andersen made a comment about funding the deputy sheriff salaries, but this is one-time money, and we never use one-time money to fund salary issues. We need to fund that with on-going sustainable revenue. This is a perfect use of one time money because we are making a one-time investment to bridge a gap to move forward and hopefully the larger education effort by the leaders of Brentwood and Oakley and those in unincorporated area can help move this a way that it hasn’t been moved before.’
He further highlighted the inequality of the tax revenue due to Proposition 13.
“One could argue if you look at the numbers, Brentwood, Oakley and the county all get a little more of that 1% than they would have gotten had East Contra Costa Fire gotten a larger amount. If you think about it, what the larger amount that Brentwood, Oakley and the County receive in that part of the county are possible because East County Fire get half of what the neighboring district gets. It’s kind of a fairness issue as well which is a large part of this,” said Gioia.
Gioia stated that placing the conditions on the Fire District makes sense because the county needed to have some levegage and want to get everyone on the same page.
The motion passed 4-1 with Andersen voting no.
37 comments
Thank you Supervisor Mary Piepho and the board for adding conditions that will bring a higher level of accountability to our situation. So far I have watched the fire board stumble and bumble through many years and never really connect with the citizens. I know they care about the district, they simply seem to lack the skills and polish to achieve their goals. I’m not sure why that is but I do think an elected board with independent status will help things. Once again I noticed Supervisor Candice Andersen is the “odd man out”. I have to question her usual approach of claiming ignorance and excuses for not supporting her fellow board members. If her reasoning was justified, I would understand, but she offered nothing but suggestions of further delay. I seriously have to question her capabilities as a county leader because when I watch their meetings, she has little to offer in the way of reasonable solutions. Well at least the matter passed in spite of her no vote. Thanks to the cities of Brentwood and Oakley too. Now it’s back to the fire board for approval. I hope they don’t screw it up.
If anybody can screw this up, it’s the existing ECCFPD board. Not one member of the board took any responsibility for the aborted Benefit Assessment. They also seem to have been set on repeating the tax attempts without changing anything about how they operate (outside of closing stations) between tries to convince the public they’re really trying to fix the district.
Where do you suppose the money should come from to finance and election and pay for a name change? Those are very expensive items. ECCFPD certainly doesn’t have the money for it and the money from the cities and county are to be used for opening a 4th station.
@ Amy Smith, that was all explained at the meeting. The election should have occurred over 8 years ago and was a condition upon handing over the district to local control. The “costs” that you are worried about are part of running the district and will be minimal when tied to any future ballot. The name change was also explained because so many different people assume this is a county department since the word county is in the name. Removing the word county and changing the name better reflects the district. The cost is minimal, but hey if they want to risk losing over a million dollars of revenue than that is their choice. These are all issues that have plagued the district and its time to fix them once and for all if us as a community are going to support the district going forward. Neither of the two cities or the county has to put up a dime. The brentwood city councilman who spoke at the meeting said that brentwood didn’t (think) to add any conditions however he agreed with the conditions and saw the importance. (I watched the meeting, maybe you didn’t?) If this whole thing is about changing direction with the “status quo” then all of the conditions are a great start.
To go to an elected board would cost an inordinate amount of money. The board discussed it years ago and it was decided that the district could not afford it. This is even more the case today. All monies should be used for stations, personnel and securing long term funding. Nothing else matters right now. I think there should be an elected board but now is not the time. Name changes and elections just don’t matter right now. Besides…an elected board will be just another 9 people that bloggers and commenters to complain about…it really changes nothing. The conditions from the BOS are inappropriate at this time being that fire protection is in crisis mode.
Amy, can’t you see that the demands and the money come with a twelve million dollar debt. Right now the county is on the hook. After an elected board residents of Far East County are liable. Pass the hot potato in disguise of candy. Typical political Supervisor. I don’t trust her.
Local, who are you lying to besides yourself with this stuff?
Presumably you are referring to pension liability. That was the responsibility of ECCFPD before the hand-off to local governance and it remains their responsibility.
Just like the money to address it comes only from ECCFPD residents and budgets through property tax dollars. It does not now, nor has it ever come out of broader County funds.
You clearly don’t understand how the pension system works or how it is funded. Ask some questions to educate yourself rather than distribute bad advice to people that endangers public safety service levels with voters making bad decision based on lies you fed them.
Mr. “Local”, how many times are you going to continue to try to peddle your lies? It’s been said and proven that the fire department is NOT a county department. That means, the County (and cities) are NOT on the “hook” in any way, shape or form.
The entire effort of getting the board to where we are today was done in the name of local control. The steps to further that effort was to elect a board of directors after initial and temporary appointments.
Unfortunately for everyone involved the fire board has failed to recognize and act on this. if you read or heard the BOS conditions it was pointed out that they are back in the position to leverage that action amongst others. It’s not passing the hot potato, it’s making sure that the original conditions are finally met.
Even the name change makes sense. There was no confusion about who controlled the department when it was called East Diablo.
The person that hasn’t proven trustworthy is you Mr. Local. Keep trying to sell your lies here and that label you put on yourself will only get worse. No one trusts you.
Could someone please explain why CCCFPD and ECCFPD are treated different with respect to governance and one getting to keep its name? Why is it ok for the bos to govern one and not the other? Why does CCCFPD get to keep its name that has the same or even a higher level of inference as the name that the bos says has to be changed?
I get that ECCFPD was organized after CCCFPD and that it was a combination of multiple entities but their mission is to serve part of the county just like CCCFPD serves part of the county. So why the different treatment? Who made the original decisions that are being undone? Why didn’t the bos make these changes at the exact time they decided to no longer be the governing body? It seems to me the bos is still controlled by the same 3 people now as it was then….. why didn’t they do what they are now demanding when they themselves had the chance?
Great news for east county!!!! Thanks for the recap of the meeting East Co Today.
my observations from this article
For several years the bos apologists have been claiming this fire board was independent and others have said not true…whenever this was raised the apologists would launch into their typical abusive name calling tactic of diversion from the real issue. But now we read the following: Supervisor Karen Mitchoff questioned Piepho saying she thought they were an Independent District. Piepho replied they were a Dependent District because they were Dependent on the Board of Supervisors……….
Why has the bos waited so long to make these ‘demands’ if they are really that important?
Wow, a name change. Talk about wanting to toss the hot potato even farther away. Why treat the ECCFPD different than the CCCFPD? Why the different forms of governance? Why is one the ugly step child and one ‘good enough’ for bos oversight?
And with respect to the water service fees being improperly allocated ….. If I’m reading the articles correctly this has been going on for every single day of the responsible supervisors time in office. For multiple terms! How can this be? How can this supervisor even think about running again given this obvious level of dereliction?
By my observation this all more of the same BS that calls for new county leadership.
Hi JB,
Regarding the demands, the BOS has no authority over the ECCFPD who when they were formed were tasked with two recommendations which was become independent with an elected board and to find long-term sustainability. Keep in mind the leadership at the time in the formation of the ECCFPD wanted local control and hell bent on making it work.
The name change is simple–create less confusion between a county fire department and a “special” district. An education process can then begin under a segregated name instead of lumping firefighter pay, benefits, financial issues together, it can easily be explained without lumping everything into the “county”. Is a name change needed, only time will tell.
Someone actually asked why it took 22-years for the overlap to be corrected as it was stated in historical documents the overlap should be corrected as far back as 1993. We got the answer yesterday from Supervisor Mary Piepho who was elected in 2004 nearly 10-years after the recommendation. She said: “Unfortunately, the overlapping boundary only became public last year through a LAFCo Municipal Services Review. Yes, some knew very well that this inappropriate situation existed, but the public and leadership were unaware until the MSR was published.”
Changing the name is just another way for the bos to create distance between them and a situation they are not capable of handling or willing to work hard to find solutions for.
Changing the name will have costs to replace the signage, new logs on the equipment and revising the uniforms, etc. …for what real benefit ?
One more reason these individuals need to be out of office. These are not leaders or problem solvers they are cya specialists who simply seek to extend their time in office for the nice pension.
I’m not buying they did not know of the overlap before last year ….but lets say for the sake of argument it was ‘last year’ they found out. Last year is last year …at least 12 months ago, why is it not resolved? Why have they not gone after part of the offending entities sizable reserve that came to be in part due to the known and wrongful overlap. Even a half functional supervisor would make an effort in this regard to recover what ‘belongs’ to their constituents. Even by California standards this is crazy poor performance by an elected official.
jb, I have noticed that you can read but you only see what you want to see. Very unfortunate and I wonder how that impediment pans out for you. For instance you completely missed what appears to be obvious in the dialogue between Supervisor Piepho and Mitchoff. Piepho stated that “they were a Dependent District because they were Dependent on the Board of Supervisors and that they created the governing Board in existence now”. Key point they “were” as in past tense. Past tense as in almost a decade ago. A decade ago they “were” under the county control. Today and for the last 8-9 years they have not been under the county control but have not reached “independent” status because they have not elected an independent board. From your posts you always seem to have a chip so large that it impedes your judgment. Or dare I say you don’t really have a good sense of judgment to begin with. What are the odds that you are only ignorant when it comes to posting on this website? I hope that met your expectations since you call those of us with common sense apologists in an abusive tone. You are so quick to play the victim while searching for a public hanging. Every time you post here its the same old song and dance. Frustrated much? LOL!! The BBID-CSD issue is one of special district boundries and as usual you cant figure out who the responsible individuals are. Hint: it wasn’t the Supervisors, however they seemed to have a solution. Get over it. The knife cuts both ways jeffe.
Hail, hail to the protectors of the Queen ! It doesn’t change what JB claims. You can tell its election time. Promises promises……
Local, jb is a fool, has an infactuation with Piepho, has a problem with reality and doesn’t even live in the state of California. The guy is 100 percent certifiable! No wonder you buy into his “claims” because they are nothing but bs and that’s right up your alley. You think this has anything to do with “election time” then you are dumber than dirt. Thanks for the laughs fool.
So the case has just been made that the ECCFPD was “dependent” in but is not currently dependent.
Not what LAFCO says. According to LAFCO the district is dependent. And yet according to months of posts on his site, anyone who says that has emotional problems.
I hope the district tells the county that they will take the money with thanks, but the demand list is not appropriate. This isn’t enough money to wash their hands of the mess they left to the property owners in East County. And as far as names go, this is East County. It is very descriptive and accurate. They don’t have a copyright on the word “County”.
And shame on any Supervisor who is thought the district to be independent. They should all know better. It’s one thing when a poster on a website doesn’t know, but these Supervisors should know.
Wow.
Really, I mean……..WOW!
BoS should do more, did you lose your marbles? Have your forgotten who appointed the 9 who sit up there?
It’s the people coming to the rescue with the money. The board members work for them, Einstein! How did you miss the obvious??
The people putting up the money _CAN_ and now apparently _HAVE_ dictated terms. Because Plan B, if your “employees” won’t listen to you is……. a pink slip. Works that way in the private sector. Works that way here.
You’re so sugared up and consumed in the act of arguing you can’t see the forest through the trees, Dude. Get off the internet already. You’re looking like a fool!
Buy a clue and I agree about this: The fire district is NOT independent. Bwood was mistaken. And like Buy a clue, unfortunately impolite.
One can only imagine the joy they get from being rude from behind a keyboard. Must be a total rush, right? Or why would they act that way? It is certainly not persuasive.
Vince makes a good point, I should have remembered County is not in the current name of ECCFPD.
So you can’t admit you were WRONG and instead try to change the subject.
Thanks for reminding the readership why you are irrelevant in this discussion. You don’t have the ability to discuss real issues and you will whine the second someone challenges your opinions that are not supported by fact.
BoS should do more, did you fail reading comprehension? Here is exactly what I wrote: “A decade ago they “were” under the county control. Today and for the last 8-9 years they have not been under the county control but have not reached “independent” status because they have not elected an independent board.”
1. The are NOT under county Control.
2. They still have not achieved “INDEPENDENT” status.
This makes YOU wrong on all counts, no matter how impolite it comes across.
Act like a fool and you will be treated like one. Stop being a prick and then crying like a little biatch when you get called out on it. If you can’t handle the Internet, blogging or dealing with a push back on your incorrect opinions than go away. No one appreciates your whining.
Here’s the deal, stop playing games and I’ll stop being rude. Fair enough?
So the county is still responsible for this mess. Sounds like the Board of Supervisors is again trying to distance itself from this hot potato. We been lied to about this all this time ? Now they offer the carrot of cash that trolls on here said was illegal. Boy oh boy what a crock. ECCFP think long and hard before you accept this suicide money that has strings attached.
luvsBI95, we just went through this, but there you are again either trying your best to confuse the facts or just playing dumb.
1. The county is NOT responsible for this mess.
2. The county turned over the district and included 6 Million dollars in reserve funding to the current board 8 years ago. The “mess” we have today is a result of the current leadership spending down the reserves, and closing 5 of the 8 firehouses. How is that possibly anyone’s fault but the current board who has been making 100 percent of the decisions for almost a decade? That’s historical and documented fact.
3. The County and both cities are giving (as in a “gift”) over a million dollars to help the district get back on its feet long enough to change direction. How is that in any stretch of the imagination “distancing itself”? Another fact.
4. Do you even understand the difference between a carrot and a stick? A carrot is used to entice, a stick is used to direct. The cash is not a carrot. The district has failed to follow the conditions originally put on them from the onset. a) form an independent district, b) have an elected board. They have failed in both regards. It was pointed out that this is now the leverage to force the board to comply with the original conditions. (jb should like this, he is big on words like “leverage” and “compliance”). Again, another fact.
5. If you have been lied to, it has been by this current board. There is no shortage examples. It’s why there is such a trust issue with the district. Do yourself a favor, attend a meeting.
6. The cash was never said to be illegal, by me or anyone else. What has been said is that the county is not required by law, to operate a fire department. They also don’t use money out of the general fund for such things. Read this story completely and you will see that holds true now. This money is being taken from a fund which was created from payment by the state for previously unfunded mandates. It was explained several times. Pay attention if you are going to point fingers and make accusations. Another inconvenient set of facts.
7. Suicide? The district is finished if they don’t take this money. They have no other options and have pigeon holed themselves. For some crazy reason the fire board thought they were in a position to put forth conditions on the money they are receiving. They are not in any position to do anything but except the conditions. I think Buy a Clue pointed it out, if they fail to do the right thing, they can be removed and replaced very easily. Was that the suicidal move you were pointing to?
After reading the assumptions and erroneous comments here, it is easy to see why a few doomsday people cannot see why conditions having to do with leadership and proper governance are not understood. Maybe a few of you need to read a little s-l-o-w-e-r because you are looking really dumb. There is no getting around the black and white of the reality here. Sorry if it makes me the bad guy to point it out for you. It’s just too easy.
After reading some of the posts on this thread, let’s be clear about the name. “County” is not in the name. It is called the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District. However,the neighboring Fire District, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District does have the word “county” in it. It is a dependent fire district and is not independent nor is it a county fire district. Some have given credit to the “county” because this special district does provide automatic aid to the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District. This aid is coming from one special district to another. The county is not providing this aid. It is coming from the tax payers of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and the tax dollars collected by this jurisdiction. The county is separate. For what it’s worth.
Vince, your right, ….sort of…Contra Costa makes it sound like a county department since Contra Costa is the county. Also several references incorrectly add “county” into the name which goes to the issue and need for correction.
Thanks for the clarification it’s worth something, but at this point all of this is nothing more than a calculated distraction put on by a very few “anti tax” anti fire department individuals. They just can’t help themselves.
BOS should do more? If you were referring to my post, you may have a serious reading comprehension problem. I cited the fact that Piepho’s quote said the district started as a dependent district and still is a dependent district. As you acknowledged according to LAFCo that makes me and Piepho correct. You might want to read my post again, it’s really not complex. I’m pretty sure Piepho is a LAFCo commissioner and was educating someone (Mitchoff) who isn’t. It’s comical that you are troubled by such an insignificant detail.
So ya think the fire board should take the money but that the conditions are not appropriate? Based on what do you arrive at that opinion? Do you run the county, fire district, control the budget, forget who makes the appointments to the fire board or did you just gloss over the reasons presented which justified the conditions. There wasn’t much left to the imagination, it was clear and universally supported. Guess you glossed over that to. If the district balks, they lose the funding, all of it, all in or nothing, it wasn’t up for negotiation. Again it’s pretty clear if you are paying attention. I guess the BOS is done with the BS.
Are you are really saying that the BoS shouldn’t do what they can to remove any confusion (often demonstrated here on this blog and in other social media) about the incorrect assumptions that this fire district a county department? Why don’t you just come out and own up to what you are implying. Seriously dude, you are not very clever. These are adult decisions and it doesn’t appear you are qualified to rationalize what it taking place. I see you are very much like our whiney friend jb… You’re both limited to throwing sticks. Sad.
My apologies, I misread the post from bwood. It is a good point, and one that would be better made in a civil manner. But I should have either sifted through the anger and rudeness or avoided the post entirely.
Guess someone needs to tell the fire chief that “county” isn’t in the name. Haha!
Couldn’t make a BETTER case for why a name change is necessitated. Read it and weep!
https://eastcountytoday.net/contra-costa-county-executive-fire-chiefs-endorse-task-force-recommendation/
@B-Wood
Are you just blabbing to yourself with the last 3 posts. Chill out guy. You may need a defib.
@local, thanks for letting me know that you read my posts and couldn’t provide a retort. You just proved “Buy a Clue”s” point better than anyone could. Thank you.
“So you can’t admit you were WRONG, and instead try to change the subject.
Thanks for reminding the readership why you are irrelevant in this discussion. You don’t have the ability to discuss real issues and you will whine the second someone challenges your opinions that are not supported by fact.” -Buy a Clue
So, No need for a defibrillator (unless that’s some new fancy cocktail). It’s my day off and I’m just “chillaxin” while shooting fish in a barrel. Thanks for being a fish.
B-Wood you are on fire! Thanks for saying what all of us are thinking. (Buy a clue, you too.) Somethings got to change. I’m tired of reading bias coming from people unwilling to roll up their sleeves or research their positions. This is our fire district and it is up to us to fight for it and make it work. Enough with the childish distraction tactics. Keep it factual is all I ask.
B-Wood, it is you and Buy a Clue along with your other hidden names that tried to sell the independent district lie. Even Piepho misled the lie and she is on LAFCO. That is shameful but regular with her. At least she has decided to come clean admitting the district is dependent on the county. Maybe it is finally time for a ” true legal independent district ” if ECCFPD doesn’t mess that up. Now that everyone has come clean except you, it may be time to begin a real fire district ran by real elected citizens.
Local, you are one confused little dude. I guess the subject matter is just a wee bit over your pay grade. Who is saying this is an independent special district. Everyone has been saying its a dependent district, but you are assuming it’s dependent on the county and BoS. News flash, it isn’t! It’s no hidden secret, do yourself and us a favor and call LAFCo, the county CAO or anyone of the 5 supervisors. This district is in NO way DEPENDENT on the COUNTY. Got it yet? It exists under a health and safety code, but you didn’t do your homework. You see it’s a hybrid and has remained in that state for 8 years because the current board did not do what they were told to do. It’s all documented dodo. Piepho got it right but you missed that too. Figure it out, that is why these conditions now force them to begin a real fire district ran by real elected citizens. You see Piepho is handing you exactly what you want. You are just too freaking stupid to have figured it out on your own. I said it before, you make this far too easy. Just read what is in front of you and you might not embarrass yourself so much in front of everyone. Silly fish. Bang!
lolzzz. More infomercial for the bankrupted yet over paid fire department. Local did you see how this bias site deleted all the comments from the “woman complaint about Henderson buying lunch” shame!
Perception, Biased? Are you sure it isn’t because you and your buddy “local” took it completely off topic?
Is there nothing to keep you from trolling on this site in an attempt to screw up our fire department? Take a hint buddy! That’s both a perception and a reality!
Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.
I saw that. I knew this site was politically influenced. Free speech is not free here. You must do the liberal progressive kiss and dance.
Hey local, keep looking like a disgruntled old man. ECT gives you plenty of leash to run your mouth on. Just because you are in the minority and can’t handle adult discussion or debate, don’t take it out on the person that allows your childish mindset to express itself. I know it pisses you off to be so consistently “misunderstood”. Maybe you should wake up to the fact that you don’t make sense to anyone but yourself. Proving so, every time your pinned down to provide facts, you either go silent or start another round of ambiguous statements. It’s amusing because you lack any substance and any credibility but yet you continue to return for more. I want to be the first to thank you for giving me and others so much material to work with. You have no idea at what a dope you make yourself out to be. By the way hotshot, I’m a conservative Republican.
Do you ever get anything right or do you simply wander around the planet wondering why everyone else is screwed up? I’ll bet you are a real pleasure to be around.
Comments are closed.