By way of a 6-1 vote, the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District approved a professional services agreement with HBWB Strategies for public outreach and education services not to exceed $125,000.
The services are intended to help the Board educate District residents, property owners and voters as to the purpose of a potential parcel tax, including providing information on the District’s current financial situation and challenges, potential tax structure and amount, and potential uses of tax revenues.
The proposed scope of work and resulting agreement in an amount not to exceed $125,000 would include:
- Parcel tax rate/structure consulting (approximately $16,500
- Ballot language, outreach strategy, messaging, and informational materials both traditional and digital consulting (approximately $46,00
- Up to three direct mailers, including design, copy, production, and mailing (approximately $62,500)
Here is a brief recap of some of the Directors Comments:
Director Steve Smith – the presentation by TBWG Strategies was by far the most comprehensive and included a further financial review (a grouping of four firms that does this type of work). They felt like they could take a look at what the finance committee did and define savings more. They felt like they could return a little bit more money than what our models predicted… they have a very good success record, they have an appreciation for that this is the most difficult situation to be in and having to go in a June Election of a non-presidential year with a fiscally conservative district. I felt by far this was the best presentation and gives us some additional strategies and gives us the best chance to explain as best we can what really is at stake here. This figure of $125k is not too far above what was spent last time in the previous campaign.
Director Joe Young – I’d like to point out that this is a not to exceed contract. The actual cost depends on the amount of effort.
Board President Joel Bryant – Asked how long it takes the District to use $125k to support staffing. The answer was 3 to 4-days since they use $1 million a month.
Bryant shared his concerns with the Board on this type of contract.
“My concern is this, seeing that there is an outside entity doing a substantial amount of information gathering… I still have doubts, personally, that bringing in a for this amount of money a consultant at this time, this late time in the game is going to bring this amount of benefit. I personally would not support this at this time because I frankly in plain English I don’t know they will bring us any new information that we currently have that hasn’t already been brought to our attention… is it something that is going to bring us $125k worth of benefit,” said Bryant.
Director Young – he explained that the District does not have the resources to work on a ballot measure to send out educational materials. He explained these activities we need because the district does not have the staffing. He explained this is a form of technical support.
“If this is going to pass, its money well spent,” said Young.
Director Smith – they are not just bringing the ideas to the table they are bringing the expertise and execution that we don’t have. They are bringing the database knowledge and go through the parcels to see what would work and to execute this in a few weeks. That is what this does. We worked hard on the finance committee, we brought models and ideas and allowed and they can take this a step further.
Director Young explained that the firm will look at different types of parcels and see about different amounts per parcel depending on parcel type (commercial vs. residential vs. agricultural) as opposed to one parcel tax cost for all.
Director Greg Cooper said the specialty of the firm will be to look at the parcels and help us determine if Les Schwab for example should be paying he same as a residential home. He said the firm told them that is not fair and they will help them find something that is fair for everyone. He explained the board has reached its capacity in what they can achieve and now they need help from an outside firm to package the parcel tax. Once the firm has collected the data they will give them a yes or no if this tax is able to pass.
“I think the bottom line is we have to realize that at some point we have reached our limit in terms of what we can achieve as a board, we have reached it, we are there, there is no way this board can move forward by ourselves,” said Cooper. “I’ve asked them they have got to give us a heads up or down of whether this is even going to work. That is going to be the tough decision as a board in case it’s a no.”
He further stated there is no way that he would want to move forward without them.
Director Cheryl Morgan asked about different parcel tax rates for different types of parcels. Asked if different rates was even legal under the constitution and safe potential legal challenges.
Legal explained that if that was the case, it would be fully vetted before this idea came back to the Board.
Board Vice President Ronald Johansen agreed with Director Cooper and that they should hire a firm to assist the District in outreach.
“I have to agree with Director Cooper, my biggest concern is I don’t know how we can move forward without it,” said Johansen. “I to believe we have reached an impasse of a board of what we can do. Believe it or not the language of a ballot is everything. How we format the ballot statement, how we place it on the ballot… being prepared to address the challenges that we may face they have that expertise and they know what the language works to maximize the potential success with the voters.”
Johansen stated that they cannot afford to not use the firm. He admitted it’s a lot of money, but he wanted to be able to look back after the election if they lose and see they did everything possible for an opportunity for success. He said its money well spent.
“If we lose this election, the amount of is really insignificant because we are going to close 2-stations no matter what and that money would not keep any station open or have an impact,” said Johansen. “I want to give this a fighting chance.”
Roll call vote:
- Joel Bryant – No
- Ronald Johansen – Yes
- Kevin Bouillon – Yes
- Greg Cooper – Yes
- Robert Kenney – Yes
- Jonathan Michaelson – absent
- Cheryl Morgan – abstain
- Stephan Smith – Yes
- Joe Young – Yes
11 comments
FAIL it will.
-The district has a permanent, long term revenue problem. A “patch” is not what is needed. A funding tax that brings the department on par with the rest of the county and surrounding areas for adequate service is a necessity. It is a “need to have” not a “nice to have”.
-The 5 year sunset is ridiculous and falls short of a realistic goal. This is based on the monumental costs associated with elections. The district does not have 100′s of thousands of dollars available spend on more elections. At a minimum, a 7 to 10 year sunset would be reasonable and most surely would have to be renewed. The problem is not going away.
-I refuse to vote for a tax simply because it meets an arbitrary figure that is claimed more palatable to some voters. This lower amount is no bargain and will put us in a worse position 5 years down the line.
-I will not vote for or support a tax that falls short of what is required to provide a base level of emergency service and leaves fire stations closed and communities without initial protection.
The recent “plan” is a day late and a hundred dollars short. The ECCFPD is not only in disarray, but lacks focus, a solid plan, and most importantly is missing a team approach that everyone can get behind.
The proposed tax is unfortunately already doomed to failure. It may have had a chance IF the district directors and firefighters, had begun with an educational campaign (at least a year in advance) demonstrating why the district has a shortfall of revenue due to a low allocation of property tax. Inclusive of a realistic amount of cost necessary to re-open closed stations in all communities could secure voters from Byron/Discovery Bay, Bethel Island and other affected areas. *Ask yourself, why would they vote for a tax no matter what the amount when their stations remain shuttered.
For a tax to succeed at the ballot box, 2/3 (66 percent) is needed. The latest direction no doubt alienates additional voters and draws a larger margin of failure.
I will not put good money behind a bad plan.
Spend time–at least a year–not a few months, educating the public. Put a solid funding plan back on the table that reopens stations and provides east county with the emergency services that it requires. Most importantly, get as many people, groups, agencies on the same page. (Right now, I see none of that taking place, and it is far too late to census build). If it fails, then at least you know you did everything you could to make the department function. It is the right thing to do.
Short of this, the tax will fail. It is a foregone conclusion.
I think they started before this was approved. I received a phone call last week. The caller said it was a “survey.” There were lots and lots of questions about the parcel tax. There were “push questions” such as “what is your opinion about this statement in favor of the parcel tax?” It was a selling effort, not really a survey. I was irritated.
Christine… this polling was not done by the ECCFPD Board. This contract does not include any form of polling. That is from another entity.
Who did this phone survey? It was very slanted toward passing the ECCFPD.
ECT,
I just received my survey call. Here are some facts from the call;
According to the person in an 818 area , they were from interview services corp.
They asked questions about Joel Bryant, Bob Taylor, Local 1230, Con Fire, ECCFPD, 911 dispatch, Mary Piepho, Mark Desaulnier, the ballot measure, parcel tax, sunset clause, cost of living increase, etc. The caller appeared focused on the ballot measure fire tax and the support or non support. They spoke of $45 dollars, $80.dollars, and $98. dollars.
Christine is correct and I agree with her. I asked the caller who was paying for the survey and they refused to provide that information but directed me to their website, http://www.ISACorp.com.
It would be nice if ECT can find out who sponsored ( paid for ) the survey.
Excuse me if I don’t laugh. The District is going to educate the public at a cost of $125k? Haven’t they been preaching the same arguement for 5 years they don’t recieve enough money? Thank you Joel Bryant for being the only Board Member looking out for the taxpayer.
Way to get lawsuits going by trying to charge different types of parcels a different parcel tax rate.
East County doesn’t need a consultant because I can tell you for free it will fail because the Board has failed the peope of East County. Since the last election there has been no education, no cause for a tax, nor has there been any need for a tax with five stations open when they said they would close. I know they got a grant that will espire and I understand 3 stations will suck for the firefighters but the public already said no and now they are wasting more of our monies. Where is the City Council members who put these idiots on the Board? Time to begin holding city councils responsible for their board selections.
I am sick and tired of government asking for more money. This is nothing against the firefighters, I just hate government not running things correctly.
If the tax doesn’t pass, You can bet that 2 stations will close and firefighters will be laid off. I don’t believe its a bluff as it has already happened once before. I am still waiting for all the naysayers to come up with a better way to bridge the gap. Other than putting it on the backs of the firefighters who have already made sacrifices, Get paid less than any other fire agency in the bay area and who contribute at least 1/3 of their salary to their retirement.
Give me one good reason to vote yes.
I agree with bwood, why should we pass this tax? It isn’t a fix, its a bandaid. I cannot fathom how they would expect anyone to pay anything extra when so many communities are already getting shafted. What incentive would someone from Byron, Knightsen, Bethel Island or Oakley, Discovery Bay and Brentwood have to keep fire stations closed? You can’t make a good case for putting a tax on us simply because you think the amount (under 100 bucks) is easier to swallow. This is the worst excuse I have ever heard!!!! The directors of the district should be ashamed.
If I remember right ECCFPD did try to “fix” the problem with the last tax, that was shot by the voters. Now they are doing what they can to survive, by asking for less money and time to come up with better strategies over a period of time. Still not good enough for people. Here’s a thought…If you don’t want to support the men and women who go to work everyday ready and willing to sacrifice there life for yours. Then don’t call 911
One reason to vote yes, hmmm… Nope…. wait, vote yes if you want to drag this out another five years before it starts all over again.There ya go Stan.
Local 1230 wants control, let them bail this out. I heard the firefighters dues jumped double from the last vote. I do not know how they put up with that.This is what local 1230 wanted and now they have it. If the stations go down to three I’m confident the labor commission and the state will have to step in.There will be no safe way for the firefighters to run calls for 56 hours straight without jeopardizing themselves and the public.The next stage comes the threats of death, doom, and destruction, or else.
Comments are closed.