By way of a 5-2 vote Monday, the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District approved $20k in spending for polling of property owners to be performed to better understand their views and opinions regarding a potential benefit assessment.
The polling the consultant would like to see is polling property owners as opposed to all voters since the Benefit Assessment would affect them explained Chief Hugh Henderson.
“This polling would be different than the polling done by Local 1230 because they polled registered voters. The polling and survey the consultant would like to see is contacting property owners and focusing on those property owners in three areas,” said Henderson.
The three areas include:
- Duration of benefit assessment (sunset)
- Escalator or flat amount over the life of the assessment
- Creation of a separate oversight committee
Director Bob Kenny stated that along with the polling, he wanted the District to be more active in the social media aspect and help educate the public.
Chief Henderson explained that the District is trying to get 4-posts a week up onto their page and highlight incidents, activities or training. They are also working on public service messages. He was quick to point out that other agencies have dedicated employees for social media and education outreach, the District is doing the best they can with the limited resources they have.
Director Smith stated that he wants social media to be more engaging and a resource for information—including photographs.
Director Joe Young expressed concerns about doing a survey.
“I really feel our objective is to present the public to present a sound funding plan to maintain the five stations,” said Young. “The consultant’s dollars and time would be better spent developing a financial plan for the benefit assessment based on what the assessment would be for. “
He further explained how a sunset is a given, an escalator is not a good idea and they know they will have an oversight committee and would prefer using the money on having the consultant figure out the length of the benefit assessment since they are more costly to develop that plan.
“Going out and asking the public which is very uninformed what they like just gives us information on something that isn’t necessarily solve the problem. In fact, in mostly likely won’t,” explained Young. “We already know they do not like extra taxes and prefer shorter to longer, and a flat number is an easier sell. It’s not going to give us any new information that we already don’t know and it’s not going to necessarily give us the best financial plan.”
Director Smith disagreed, stating he was included to go with the consultant’s recommendation saying he has a great deal in confidence of the team.
“I am looking at the fact for this area and our district that this is a whole new breed of cat. We have never done anything like this before. We tried it once, but not with anywhere near the kind of team we have now working on our behalf,” said Smith. “They have been willing to tell us some things that we didn’t want to hear when we needed to hear it as far as what would have been a disastrous effort on putting on a parcel tax.”
Smith moved that the Board approve the polling and approve the funding to complete the Districts outreach. At this point, Board President Joel Bryant did not recognize the motion or ask for a “second” and instead allowed for more discussion.
Cheryl Morgan questioned why they are doing another poll because the consultant did not show up to the meeting to answer questions. Morgan wanted to know what new information they would gather that they already did not know.
The Chief explained the biggest change in the survey is that you are only contacting property owners across the district versus registered voters.
“For our benefit, spending $20k on education versus polling is money better spent,” said Morgan.
Director Greg Cooper stated that if you go back a few months we had this very conversation where we debated about sunset, CPI, and dollar amount.
“The reason we spent 45-minutes debating this is because we didn’t have those answers. That is the whole purpose of the consultant. We may not have a dollar amount right now but part of what they will go after is how we frame this once we have a dollar amount,” said Cooper. “The only way we can get that information is to go to those people who are voting. So ya, I think we are crazy if we don’t go with the consultant to get the information to see what will be supported by the community. We tried to do this alone, we are walking blind.”
Board President Joel Bryant then called for a roll call vote. Director Smith interrupted saying he had a motion on the table; however, President Bryant did not recognize it or ask if his motion had a second.
Smith asked if Bryant was going to recognize his motion. Bryant responded he made a motion and was moving forward with it.
- Bouillon – Yes
- Cooper – Yes
- Kenny – Yes
- Bryant – Yes
- Morgan – No
- Smith – Yes
- Young – No
Motion passed 5-2 to move forward with spending $20 for polling.
Note: Ronald Johansen and Jonathan Michaelson were both absent
Proposed Timeline:
The schedule below incorporates community outreach efforts and development of the Engineer’s Report needed for a fire assessment:
- May 19, 2014 Outreach/Public Education Committee reviewed second mailer
- May 29, 2014 New public education pamphlet was distributed to engine companies
- June 11, 2014 Second mailer to be sent out District-wide
- June 30, 2014 Outreach/public education committee to review draft of third mailer and receive report on outreach activities
- July 17, 2014 Finance Committee meeting to review draft special vs. general benefit analysis and to consider directing staff to bring back final Engineer’s Report and proposed assessment
- July 12-15 2014 Conduct proposed survey of property owners
- July 21, 2014 Special Board of Directors meeting to receive polling results and to formulate recommendations on informational material to be included in the ballot package for a proposed assessment.
- July 31, 2014 Finance Committee meeting to review draft Engineer’s Report/proposed fire assessment
- August 4, 2014 Board of Directors meeting to consider approval of the Engineer’s Report and call for fire assessment balloting.
9 comments
Help me get this straight. ECCFPD is going to cut two stations, and then ask us if we support additional taxes for them? That is going to be a tough sell.
Clearly a case of someone commenting on a subject they obviously haven’t read about. I think you need to do a bit more research before you start typing your comment. I will start your education on this subject by saying that the additional revenue the fire district is asking for is to keep the 2 stations open that are potentially going to close in Dec. That would equal 5 all together. There you go..the rest of your education is up to you. That way you can make informed comments as opposed to the uninformed one you made.
What a waste. This board is out of touch with so much. Now they will have to compete with at least one county tax (possibly two). If the college district tax passes do you think the tax payer is going to vote for giving up even more of their hard earned pay.
No doubt the district will get sued by the taxpayer’s if they move forward with a benefit assessment when there is no measurable benefit. The kicker is the public record reflects one of the board members who voted to move this forward is captured stating it is illegal and they will probably get sued. Consider your wish granted director Smith.
Face it, a tax isn’t going to pass. The county created this problem, the county needs to fix it – county-wide. ECCFPD needs to work with the stupidvisors in Martinez.
@ Capt. Make Believe
The county created this problem? Really? How? Please try to enlighten us beyond a flip comment. You can’t because that isn’t the way it went down. What a schmuck!!!!
Do a little homework, it goes a long way. For your information the “county” is the only reason the current board had reserve funding to keep them afloat up until now. Unfortunately the current fire board has taken very little action except to spend down the money (reserves) that the county built up for the district. It’s a matter of public records “cappy”. Your attempt at a rewrite of history is another epic fail. You people are all the same….long on conjecture and devoid of facts. Is that all ‘ya got??
As a matter of fact, it has been stated numerous times that the county has no obligation whatsoever to provide fire services. I’ll bet that snaps your lid!
Perhaps you should try fantasizing a little less and give credit where it is due. The county should never have turned the fire district over to inexperienced control freaks.
Reality must be miserable for you.
David,
Try not to pick on someone with a different opinion. This statement below is pretty clear.
•3 stations staffed by a minimum of three personnel December 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015
Notice the date of closure is shortly after the public vote. Very suspicious.I think John has a valid point. This is why I’m tired of the ransom tax or else. I commented on the other article. It is time to merge for many reasons. If Gioia gets his way with an ems tax a merger will follow.
It makes the most sense but the voters will have the last say.
You are truly uninformed as well. If you read the board minutes which you obviously haven’t. They state that the benefit assessment vote will occur before November(it is not an election but a mail in ballot). If it passes then there will probably be a bridge loan set in place to keep staffing at it’s current level until the money kicks in. His as is your opinion are based on a point of view not based in fact but in imagination. You all really need to do your research before posting comments. Your homework assignment is to go back through the past year of board minutes and video. Make sure you take notes. Then get back to us with your findings. Then we will all know you are using informed opinions instead of making up information that suits your position. You really have to delve deeper than just reading what’s on the surface.
•3 stations staffed by a minimum of three personnel December 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015
This is the report on a sister article. What is suspicious is the date of closure is just a few weeks after the public votes on a new tax. I think John has a valid argument. As I commented on the other article that ransom for tax needs to stop. I can’t wait for the merger. If Gioia gets his way with and ems sales tax and it passes you can count on a merger. The ransom for tax, sky is falling yo yo affect is getting pretty old. Time for the county to step in before playing Russian Roulette with the public.
One of your worst nonsensical rants yet, Chuck. Appears your tinfoil hat is on a bit too tight this morning too.
The closures are immediately after the SAFER grant money runs out. Responsible government involves contingency planning. As the District is faced with a major reduction in supporting operational funds, they need to discuss and decide many months in advance how to respond to the shortfall. They did that here.
See? No boogeyman. No conspiracy theory. Sorry to disappoint you, Mr. Negative.
There is no ransom for tax. You pay nothing in taxes over and above the inadequate amount that goes to fire services now. Stop acting like a weasel or an idiot(take your pick) and trying to meld taxes for all government services into comments when it suits your argument.
If you want to talk about fire, talk about the funding portion which goes to it. If you don’t understand what the portion is, then educate yourself instead of posting clueless opinion. The laws and funding formulas do not work according to your opinion. Bout time you figured that out.
Comments are closed.