On Sept. 8, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District rebuffed claims made by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District that they provided incorrect data causing the District to rescind ballots for a Benefit Assessment.
During its Sept. 3 Special Board Meeting, the ECCFPD voted to rescind its Benefit Assessment Ballot while placing blame on both the County and Contra Costa County Fire for incorrect or incomplete data.
According to ECCFPD Chief Hugh Henderson, the data was incorrectly placed on fire hydrants and roadways. The fire hydrant mapping data was obtained from Contra Costa County Fire and is also used in their computer systems and related to that data missing was 3,000 parcels across the district. The data used by the road mapping was obtained from Contra Costa County Global Information System (GIS), which is missing significant data on over 7,000 parcels.
“Some of the parcels were impacted by both data bases,” said Henderson. “Between both data sources, it’s been determined that benefit points per parcels estimate up to 10,000 parcels have been wrongly distributed points resulting in benefits on those parcels being wrong on their ballots. Furthermore, the inaccuracy of the data of 10,000 parcels also effects the calculations of the other 32,000 parcels across the District.”
In a letter dated Sept. 8, ConFire disputed the claim made by Chief Henderson and the ECCFPD Board.
Chief Carman stated that ConFire believes that even a cursory review of the data by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District or their consultant would have quickly revealed the missing information prior to the ballots being sent. So while the situation is unfortunate, ConFire takes no responsibility for the errors made by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and/or their consultant.
Here is a copy of the letter
Dear Chief Henderson,
This letter is being written to dispute recent accusations made by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District that the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ConFire) provided erroneous map data causing them to rescind ballots for a Benefit Assessment.
Contractually, the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District is responsible to provide ConFire the most current mapping data, and ConFire agrees to post that data to the current map. In this case, ConFire had in fact posted all map data that had been provided to them by East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, so the accusation that ConFire provided erroneous data was false. The fact that no hydrant maps for the area in question had ever been provided to ConFire caused the map data to be incomplete, not erroneous, and certainly not at the fault of ConFire.
ConFire believes that even a cursory review of the data by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District or their consultant would have quickly revealed the missing information prior to the ballots being sent. So while the situation is unfortunate, ConFire takes no responsibility for the errors made by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and/or their consultant.
Please respond back to me immediately if you find anything in this letter to be incorrect or misleading. I think that providing a clarifying pubic record such as this letter is important to set the record straight as we move forward. As always, ConFire remains a strong supporter of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and hopes to maintain the strong working relationship in the future that we have had in the past. I look forward to any response you may have.
Thank you,
Jeff Carman
Fire Chief
23 comments
Attention all elected/appointed officials, an example of when you are in the info gathering stage that one does not point fingers. Once it hits the public, let the finger pointing begin. If I am ECCFPD, I am embarrassed. Kudos ECT for publishing this and getting the truth out.
Wasn’t the ECCFPD talking about honesty and being upfront with voters, now it turns out they not only messed up a Benefit Assessment ballot, but now they are lying even at finger pointing who messed up? They get a “no” vote from me.
CoCo Tax is right for a change, rescind the benefit assessment. Here is what Alex Aliferis said
Here are two great reasons to oppose the proposed new Benefit Assessment District to fund fire suppression in East County. Voters will decide by voting on this ballot measure in the November General Election.
1. The measure illegally abuses the definition of a benefit assessment district defined by Prop 218 and will be successfully challenged in court.
2. And, it does not address the root cause of the spiraling pension and operating costs of the fire district.
Bullshite.
Put your money where you mouth is. What the Howard Jarvis people _WANT_ Prop 218 to mean and what it actually means with the language that is on the books are two very different things.
There is case law already decided that has supported benefit assessments for fire suppression in California.
The taxpayers group LIED when they claimed Sacramento Metro pulled their measure over fear of a lawsuit. One only has to read the news or make a phone call to find out the truth. Metro’s was pulled purely because they didn’t feel they had the public support for passage. Legal questions had nothing to do with it.
An 18 year veteran Captain just retired with $2700/mo pension. Barely 15% of the $250k/yr. pension lies that CCTPA likes to spread. Pensions are not what’s ailing ECCFPD.
@ CoCo
Sorry, but Alex Aliferis has no clue what he is even talking about.
1. He is lying because he has never given one example of why it will be “successfully challenged” in court. He may get to court, but doesn’t mean he will win.
2. He wants to talk about cost because he knows the real issue is funding. Of course without proper funding there is a problem with cost. He knows the Prop 13 is the issue with allocation of funds, but ignores it and spreads lies so he can continue to collect a paycheck.
To those that keep blaming prop 13, do you have any clue what your property taxes would be without it??
There are more homes not under prop 13 than the other way around. It only gives commercial properties a real break such as the gas refineries. That should never been included in Prop. 13. Stop blaming it for the woes of these cities. City and Fire department mismanagement is a problem of their own.
East County Fire should stop shoveling stuff and own up to their mistakes.
All property taxes of all parcels in California, old and new are regulated by Prop 13. Just because the law was passed in 1978 does not mean it is invalid today. Do some reading.
This is why Prop 13 is great for us property owners…
“By Proposition 13, the annual real estate tax on a parcel of property is limited to 1% of its assessed value. This “assessed value,” may be increased only by a maximum of 2% per year, until and unless the property has a change of ownership.[6] At the time of the change in ownership the low assessed value may be reassessed to complete current market value which will produce a new base year value for the property, but future assessments are likewise restricted to the 2% annual maximum increase of the new base year value.”
It’s bad for special districts that rely on solely on property tax revenue. This is because the percentage of taxes that post prop 13 districts get is far below what districts formed prior to 1978 get, It’s almost half. So it’s a tough dilemma. However to say that prop 13 has nothing to do with it is ignorant at best. Yes, there are other factors but in the end you need to look at the law that regulates taxation and funding as a starting point.
As far as finger pointing, What really needs to be looked at is what agency does the data belong to and who is responsible for keeping the data up to date. How often is the data updated and is there a lag time. The bigger issue is that the data is used for dispatching and response purposes so if it is not up to date then there could be some dangerous issues for crews responding and the people calling for help. I think that problem needs to be fixed by the owners of the database. Then needs to be double checked. I still support the ECCFPD in this endeavor, It was a mistake, mistakes happen and we move on.
Some people have a hard time moving on or understanding that mistakes happen, I guess they never, ever make mistakes. Say hi to your therapist for me.
I am still a yes vote on my multiple parcels!
Relying entirely on Prop 13 to fund a vital service like fire doesn’t work in modern times.
The 2% cap in revenue isn’t connected in any way to the rise in operational costs. Anyone who’s had to write checks for healthcare premiums knows full well the costs for that have risen much higher than 2% average in the last decade. Ditto for gasoline, utilities and any number of other costs.
The fire district is not immune to those. They have to deal just like individual households.
The anti-tax mentality is completely divorced from both math and simple logic.
What these cowards refuse to come out and actually say is they expect fire fighters to simply absorb those costs indefinitely. If CCTPA had their way we’d be paying them minimum wage or less.
I have to question, this finger pointing and the can of worms it has opened. Heads need to roll. How many property owners will avoid the next mail in ballot because of this fiasco?? Who do we trust??? Do we have any idea how much of this type of incorrect information in this county is used to calculate our property taxes & insurance rates??
The fire district should take this mishap and really reconsider spending thousands more of life saving dollars to resend the ballots out until they find the results of the lawsuit filed against Rodeo Fire for the same thing. Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on these ballots is getting ridiculous. More ridiculous is spending even more money when the same issue is being challenged in court right down the street.
ECCCFPD is trying to trick us to get funding. This ballot fiasco is ridiculous. I bet they hope the majority of property owners ignore the ballot so that the ones sent in by ECCCFPD allies will count in their favor. Brentwood needs to merge with ConFire. I would agree to a tax to have the professional fire protection services ConFire has to offer.
Hey Pete. Are you saying the men of ECCFPD are not professionals now?
ECCFPD’s $4M budget deficit for next year is dwarfed by ConFire’s $10M deficit. So how is a merge going to help you?
LAFCO would never approve of Brentwood bailing on the District anyway, so it’s a moot point. You guys obviously didn’t pay attention the last time that was brought up.
Mr. Smith,
I appreciate that you follow this website and take time to clarify issues and respond to questions from district stakeholders.
Do you know if the district is going to take any action to notify voters of the cancellation of the balloting? Perhaps a post card mailed to property owners advising them of the situation (ballot measure cancelled, possibly to be done again in the future, don’t mail in the current ballot) so that they are not needlessly put in a position of taking a public position on this issue.
There will be.a cost to doing this, but that may be somewhat offset by the savings in unnecessary postage for returned ballots. Also, in a business (winning elections) that depends on trust and communication, the effort is the least the property owners deserve.
Also, what will come of the ballots that have been returned? Are they really public records open to public records requirements for disclosure at this time? At any time?
Thank you for helping inform the public!
Concerned Voter,
Do you really think Steve Smith will clarify and give you an “honest” answer that is not in his best interest? If you believe so I have a bridge to sell you, since he cannot even remember what he has stated from one meeting to the next.
P.T. Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute. The ECCFPD board is selling tickets to the carnival. The question remains; How many times are you going to stand in line to buy tickets to their little freakshow?
ECV,
Ok, point taken. And I share your frustration with seems to be changing stories…
If the desire for local control was a big factor in forming ECCFPD then it has proven to be quite misguided. I have no harsh words for anyone on the board members at this point. They are in over their heads, but what else should we have expected. In better circumstances, where there was enough funding, no recession, and no overwhelming pension issues they would be doing great because they are motivated, community minded people who want to help improve the district.
Compare ECCFPD to ConFire, where the board is comprised of highly compensated full time county supervisors who have staff that provide great support for them in the completion of their duties, and much more administrative support to assist their Chief. Critical Mass – there’s something to be said for being “big enough” to survive in tough times.
The problem as I see it is that we haven’t reached the critical mass to compete and thrive in any sort of troubled waters. And the waters are tsunami sized in East County.
I don’t want to start an argument – but I think this ballot fiasco underscores the problems with a little district like ours, and may have finally convinced me that merging with a larger district makes sense. I doubt such a fiasco would have occurred if Con-Fire’s board were overseeing a similar ballot measure.
It is frustrating, but I just wont let myself find fault with the board members, the Chief, or the firefighters because I believe they are all doing their best and we (actually I’m not sure who it was – the voters, the county, or LAFCO) are the ones that set them up to fail.
That is such an easy answer. Supervisor Piepho is the responsible party for our fire situation. Not the board, not the cities, not the firefighters, and not the chiefs.The County needs to fix the big screw up. Merge with Con Fire is the only answer. It has to happen eventually.You can see they are already setting the stage with the union and paramedic ambulance service that will probably create more firefighter jobs and less ambulance services due to costs. When Con Fire takes over the ambulance service for the county, see how fast your Quick Response Paramedics become extinct and then the trouble will really set in. LAFCO never set this fire up because LAFCO does not recognize the fire district as independent. The first thing should have been an election for the board. No, why? because of control. Your trusted control freak Supervisor needs to step up and fix the disaster she created. The sooner the better. It is the right thing to do.
@Chuck,
To play devils advocate with you… the Piepho and the Board of Supervisors have had little to do with the District since 2002. They also provided the District with a nest egg while the Board was supposed to find additional revenue sources. They were also supposed to go to an elected board–neither happened. If anything, one can argue that the BOS has graciously allowed aid from CONFIRE to subsidize ECCFPD by allowing engines from Antioch/Pitt to continue to roll into the District covering up the District and making it look better than it really is from a response stand point. I could make the argument had the BOS cut off engines from day 1, residents of east county would have a much better understanding of their fire services because the lack of available engines would have been well known over a 10 year period.
Blame does not fall on the BOS – blame falls on the original board and each board since for not doing what it was tasked to do.
ECT,
There is no need to play devil’s advocate for anyone. Respectfully you do not have all the information and were not there in 2002. However, there were several of us there back in 2002 when the district was formed as a combination fire district ( LAFCO Creation Documents). Many of us still live here. At that time Supervisor Piepho was not in office. The formation of the combination district was created with several million dollars in surplus and no deficit. The district had 50 POC Firefighters along with several full time career firefighters. So your statement on being left with a nest egg of cash is true for 2002. Supervisor Piepho was not involved in that. Let’s move to 2004 when Supervisor Piepho was elected. The fire district had still been operating within its budget and had a fire commission. In 2004, Supervisor Piepho disbanded the fire commission and assumed full responsibility along with the other supervisors for the fire district operations and financial decisions from that point on. Supervisor Piepho remained the responsible front person for the ECCFPD until 2010 as she never created a new fire commission. The district continued to financially fail for six years under Supervisor Piepho’s direct control as no alternate funding was sought by her leadership direction. She decided that local control would be better because the public was fed up with no management leadership such as a commission to assist her. Why she went six years of no leadership participation who knows. Those six years set the stage for what is happening still today. The only change that occurred from 2004 to 2010 was that the district lost all 50 POC firefighters, 10 million dollars in unfunded liability debt was made, a bank account that was all but depleted due to overhead costs, and a few fire stations closed. From 2010 until today the district has been unable to recover from where the district was handed “local control”. It has been forced to continue closing stations. So you see ECT it is quite obvious where the problem originated.
To address your statement regarding the BOS graciously allowing mutual aid, you must be smarter than that. Supervisor Piepho and the BOS created this problem and you bet they should offer mutual just like every fire district in the country does. ECT you are correct that the blame does fall on the original board. That board was Supervisor Mary Piepho 2004 until 2010. By 2010 it was too late to recover and her hands were conveniently washed of the problem. Reorganizing and merging with Con Fire is the only solution left before lives are lost. It provides everyone with the same services and allows the firefighters to receive the same pay as their counterparts.
@ POCx (AKA Chuck) – yes I see your IP is the same.
I guess I should have been more clear… the point I was trying to make was not 1 person (board member) was responsible but it was multiple people. To put the blame all on one person (in this case you blaming Piepho) is not accurate and is silly because the funding issue dates back to 1979–20+ years before Piepho even took office. If someone is going to blame 1 person, then blame of the entire board is in order. After all, it takes more than 1 vote to make a decision.
Respectfully, you do not get to re-write history or come up with your own facts. There is reality, and there is your distorted version of what transpired. Given your multiple use of screen names and Piepho bashing, what do you have against her anyway?
Finally, you do not get to tell me what there is a need for me to do or not do on my own website. If I feel like playing devils advocate, then I will do it.
“Finally, you do not get to tell me what there is a need for me to do or not do on my own website. If I feel like playing devils advocate, then I will do it.”
Wow.. goes to show the level of maturity and professionalism of the owner of this website. How pathetic.
I guess you get your panties all ruffled up when someone doesn’t play by the rules in your sand box! Ironic how you trample other people’s opinion who differs from your own. Coming from a news reporter? Geez. The irony is so thick.
Not sure who pissed in johnny and donny’s Cheerios this week. But both Gonzales and Flint both seem to be having a particularly bad flare-up of their Piepho Derangement Syndrome based on the quantity and quality of their posts the last few days.
While you boys are busy with your little blame game, the District is scrambling to cover the station that closed about 10 days ago and they are actively debating what date on the calender the next one closes.
Talk about a lack of situational awareness……………sheesh.
Johnny, the Fire District has responded to your family calls on more than one occasion. I know that for fact. To sit there and promote a stance that is going to close the station closest to your house next and put your family in increased danger is beyond my comprehension. Dicking around and putting your community in danger I can understand. You’re a Narcissist. It’s what you do.
But your own family??
It’s demented.
It doesn’t matter who is to blame for the districts current organization. Maybe that was an argument worth having at some point in the past, but look at where we are right now. We need to deal with the current situation.
This benefit assessment ballot mess has shown me that our district cannot succeed as it is currently constituted. Our district is pointing fingers at Con-fire and they’re not having any of it. I can’t imagine how the consultants have been able to avoid criticism to this point.
But as others have said, huge issues require a more global response. Control is best at the county level, not drilled down to the burbs of east county. Let’s join up with Con-fire and allow our county supervisors to oversee our fire protection services. They already oversee our emergency medical services, and our firefighters are a huge cog in the delivery of those services. Bring it all together.
That won’t solve all the problems, but it will allow for a framework that can lead to solutions. And I hear no one asserting that the current situation will bring success.
Is there enough money? No.
Will we need a tax increase? Yes.
But let’s put the structure together first, so that we know what we are funding and can have confidence in a successful outcome.
No one has confidence in ECCFPD guiding us to a successful outcome at this point. The district believes their only hope for more revenue is the Benefit assessment, and that will probably be challenged in court if it even passes with the voters. And with this fiasco, the likelihood of passage has dropped.
I would like to see the current fire district board and the county BOS (con-fire’s board) explore this avenue.
I would also like to hear from local 1230 to learn how they perceive their bid for the AMR/transport contract will affect the con-fire customers as well as the ECCFPD customers.
Comments are closed.