Home Contra Costa County Editorial: Anti-Tax Group Should be Honest with Public in Fire District “Hail Mary” Solution

Editorial: Anti-Tax Group Should be Honest with Public in Fire District “Hail Mary” Solution

by ECT

A group of East Contra Costa Citizens have gone public over the last several months in trying to find a fix for the financial woes of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD). While the effort is appreciated and is a conversation starter, the plan is unfortunately dead on arrival, regardless of the rhetoric.

A group of citizens calling themselves the East County Voters for Equal Protection (ECV) whom openly have admitted to rejecting any form of taxes, are proposing a form of redistribution of wealth on taxing agencies. The effort appears entirely rooted in ideology with little understanding or implementation of practical planning.

The ECV committee says they have developed a voluntary program that would shift $7.8 million of the current $154 million in property tax funds collected within the fire district boundaries to the ECCFPD. Under this concept, it would fund three additional fire stations without imposing new taxes.

In several press releases, the group has cleverly quoted city managers, fire chiefs, elected officials, and county officials as if they are supporting the ECV efforts—unfortunately, its snippets are misleading and from public meetings. In some cases, they are also using portions of emails as if community stakeholders were supporting their efforts.

This is wrong as it gives a false sense of support.

Gus VinaIn fact, Brentwood City Manager Gus Vina has even had a meeting with ECV representatives asking the group’s efforts cease and instead work in partnership with the fire task force on a two-step solution—pass a revenue enhancement, then work on a “Sacramento fix” on allocations.

So far, ECV has declined Mr. Vina’s request. Yet they have continued to use those “clever” quotes trying to make it look like Mr. Vina is supporting the effort when he is working on his own time on a Task Force solution to fix the fire district.

Sadly, ECV is misleading the public in “Jim Jones” style messaging which is promising taxes do not increase while the fire districts piece of the pie gets larger over several years. What is not being explained is that under this plan, is nearly 30 agencies from BART to School District budgets are then arbitrarily frozen in time—thus, what ECV is ignoring is the discussion of what must 30 entities “give up” in an effort to have three additional fire stations.

Ironically, under their shortsighted plan, they would be creating the very problem that plagues the ECCFPD in each and every district they take revenue from. Basically freezing their revenue in time is exactly what happened to the fire district and now they want to spread it into 30 other districts? From the outside looking in, its rather insane.

Kevin-RomickOakley Mayor Kevin Romick stated the plan is suspect citing no one is discussing what cities must give up.

“I have severe reservations about any process that would take any monies away from cities and until I see what this voluntary plan is I will remain suspect to their success,” said Romick.

The unspoken fact is budgets would for all intents and purposes be frozen under the ECV plan for any agency that agrees to the shift. Ignored is the fact costs of doing business does not remain stagnant, it increases each year which means in the future an entity will have to cut service or cut jobs going forward—which is why the law is written in a way that prevents this type of re-allocation.

ECV believes that these entities can simply vote to re-allocate funding and if approved after a public hearing, it’s a done deal after Board of Supervisor approval. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple and state law is pretty clear that tax re-allocation cannot be done at the local level—not to be ignored, even if agreed upon, it would take a 4/5 vote for the Board of Supervisors for approval, not a simple majority.

Jim Frazier AD11Sadly, it appears the ECV organizers got their idea from an editorial by Assemblyman Jim Frazier who stated there was no will by Sacramento to change Proposition 13 allocations. Instead, he stated that if all local entities agreed to give up funding, he would work on a bill. Frazier is quoted in his Sept. 2 Editorial as saying:

“I would consider legislation regarding the distribution of property tax if each city, school and special district in Contra Costa County agreed to a redistribution of revenue.”

Frazier knows it will never happen, which is why he said it. So while it may appear he is willing to be helpful, in fact, he is doing next to nothing to assist his constituents or local fire district.

Unfortunately for Mr. Frazier, he is not offering a solution, but instead offering false hope in a clear pandering move.

Locally, County officials admit they tried to explain the pitfalls to Bryan Scott and Hal Bray, co-chairs of ECV, but both wanted the information anyway and are only using information that serves their purpose.

For example, under the ECV Plan, they fully admit schools will be impacted even though the law says they are off limits. Here is what ECV chair Bryan Scott said in an email regarding schools:

“Fire and emergency medical services are paid for by property taxes. The school districts are, if not the largest land holders in the district, among the largest, and they pay no property tax,” says Scott. “They are also a large consumer of fire district resources. Shouldn’t we assure that our children and teachers are safe when at school district locations? Shouldn’t the school districts carry some of that cost?”

While ECV may be entitled to their opinions on who can and should “give up” funding, they are also ignoring the ground rules provided by the law. All this does is create much confusion and false hope.

Bob CampbellBob Campbell, Contra Costa County Comptroller, stated the scenario being proposed by ECV is unlikely to move forward because schools are off limits and to even get a re-allocation, Districts would have to admit they have a surplus which is very subjective at best (see Revenue and Taxation Code 99.02).

Quite frankly, it would be hard to see anyone admitting they have surplus money—this is where the rubber meets the road when you begin discussing “surplus” funds and taking money away from schools.

With schools off limits, the ECV math is then off and all other entities would then need to give up more funding into the fire district. Furthermore, State Law per an LAO Document on property tax re-allocation says it cannot be done at a local level.

“Unlike local communities in other states, California residents and local officials have virtually no control over the distribution of property tax revenue to local governments, Instead, all major decisions regarding property tax allocation are controlled by the state. Accordingly, if residents desire an enhanced level of a particular service, there is no local forum or mechanism to allow property taxes to be reallocated among local governments to finance this improvement. For example, Orange County currently receives a very low share of property taxes collected within its borders-about 11 percent. If Orange County residents and businesses wished to expand county services, they have no way to redirect the property taxes currently allocated to other local governments. Their only option would be to request the Legislature to enact a new law- approved by two-thirds of the members of both houses-requiring the change in the property tax.”

David Twa, Contra Costa County Administrator says the process to re-allocate is “legal” depending on the process. Entities could give one-time money, much like the cities of Brentwood and Oakley along with the County, but says multiple years would be more complex. Twa further highlighted that this gets complicated because it’s not a one-time thing, the proposal would be approved each year and every year.

What is concerning about this concept is hypothetically in Year 1 maybe all 30-entities agree. But let’s say in Year 2 just 20 entities agree, you now have entities paying more money while the 10 not paying receive the benefit of greater fire protection.

Going into fire district operations, we could imagine the fire district would have a heck of a time trying to hire firefighters for a year at a time because the funding levels would fluctuate depending on who is in or out in terms of “giving up funding”. It would also make long-term planning nearly impossible.

Twa further stated that as time goes on, the ECV would have to make a formal proposal to the Board of Supervisors, but there have been no discussions about additional funding for East Contra Costa Fire, nor has there been any discussion by the Board on this proposal to “transfer” property tax funding.

“As the Citizens Group develops their proposals, I would expect them to eventually make a formal request to the Board. At that time, the matter would be discussed and the Board would determine whether or not they wished to participate. This issue is likely to be difficult for the County and every other taxing district since the net results would be less tax money available to meet other critical needs,’ said Twa.

piepho 2014In a February 24 email, Supervisor Mary Piepho told Bryan Scott, co-chair of the ECV Group, that she wanted him to be clear that she does not support the groups plan and did not see it being successful nor would it meet the needs of the ECCFPD.

Piepho said, “Your current plan will only serve to effectively terminate immediate efforts necessary to protect lives and property. Which may in fact be your goal. With that said, a one dimensional effort such as yours is not sufficient to meet the immediate needs of the District. There are a multitude of reports that come to this conclusion. The costs associated with another failed effort are exceptional, at all levels.”

Vince Wells, President, Local 1230 Contra Costa Professional Firefighters, stated he appreciates the effort by the ECV Group, but that long-term solutions need to fall within the law and need to be realistic.

“I understand the concept of where they are trying to go. I believe the county and state should prioritize the services and allocate money to where the priorities are which a lot of people say its public safety and fire. In a perfect world, if that was how it was done, they could do it. In the real world, it can’t be done. To try and re-allocate funds from 30 agencies is not going to work,” said Wells. “The concept is not going to work because you are not going to be able to get all these agencies to agree. I get what they are thinking in trying to move money around versus going to the taxpayer, but it’s not realistic. Most have already found they do not even have enough money for their current operations.”

In fact, three candidates running for County Board of Supervisors who are serviced by the ECCFPD, Steve Barr, Diane Burgis, and Doug Hardcastle stated they appreciate the concept, but realize it’s not a viable option.

Steve BarrSteve Barr, who is on the ECCFPD Board says the ECV plan may sound good, but in the real world it has no chance of being a viable solution.

“Based on the information I have this plan has very little chance of meeting the requirements of the revenue and taxation code. First of all and most importantly no shifting of property tax can come from school districts based on state law. That being said any calculations for other agencies based on schools contributing are wrong and would need to be recalculated,” said Barr. “Secondly once you remove school districts from the calculation, approximately 50% of the 1%, the amount required from the remaining agencies would most likely violate state law that requires any transfer of property tax to another agency in the same Tax Rate Area to not negatively effect the services provided by the transferring agency. I can assure you that in Brentwood giving away between $1.2m-$1.5m would have an effect on the services that we provide.”

Barr admits he is not a tax code expert, but says that the law and tax code is fairly clear on the transferring of property tax from one agency to another and the ECV plan would be better discussed at the state level because state law would need to be changed.

BurgisDiane Burgis, East Bay Regional Park District Trustee, stated the fix remains in Sacramento.

“While I appreciate the effort they are making towards trying to solve this funding problem, I it’s neither realistic or likely to even be successful. It’s going to cost taxpayers a lot of money for all the agencies to spend time trying to figure out if they can work with it. I am not even convinced that this would even be legal,” said Burgis. “Nothing has changed in the last decade despite the rhetoric; the fix must come from Sacramento.”

Doug-Hardcastle-photoDoug Hardcastle clarified comments he made in another publication, highlighting he supports bringing ideas forward, but not every idea is going to develop into a real solution.

“I am all for ideas to come forward, but it needs to go to Sacramento for re-apportionment. But how long will it take for Sacramento to get the job done to fix the problem, that is the big question and will they do it.” said Hardcastle. “There are a lot of smart people out there, it can be solved with the right solution and the right ideas come together, we just have to be open to ideas. While this plan may not work, it’s at least getting the conversation started.”

The ECV group has implied that they can “just change the law” as if it’s a simple formality, but it’s anything but.

What is stunning is that Bryan Scott and Hal Bray continue to boldly float a non-legal plan to the public in various forms while spamming social media and Letters to the Editor to publications which are vague and leave out many important details simply fit their opinion.

It’s clear by county stakeholders, ECV has put the cart before the horse in going public on a plan without providing a single presentation to a taxing agency and getting one entity to support the idea of giving up funds. Until this happens, we can assume the real purpose of this plan is to kill any attempt at a future tax measure in November.

Ultimately, being transparent and a team player are keys to any successful plan when trying to involve multiple entities. After all, it took more than a decade for the County and cities of Brentwood and Oakley to agree on opening a fourth station.

I’d hate to see the timeline in trying to get 30-entities to agree to anything.

Any move that begins discussing Prop 13 reallocation begins with self-awareness and honesty. Two things lacking by the ECV Group and the public should not be duped into wasting any more time on a concept that is dead on arrival and serves as nothing more than a distraction from the issue at hand.

Hail Mary’s typically don’t end well at the end of football games, neither will this plan.

By Michael Burkholder
Publisher of ECT

To contact the publisher, email [email protected]

You may also like

34 comments

Nancy (local teacher) Mar 2, 2016 - 8:32 am

As soon as I read they wanted to take money from our schools, I could not get behind this idea by ECV. Thank you ECT for providing information on why this plan is not legal. Not sure why any school district would give up their money when there is so many needs. I can’t even imagine them ever saying they have a surplus either.

John Adams Mar 2, 2016 - 8:33 am

For Bryan Scott, Hal Bray & ECV.

My message to you is simple, any solution should at least follow the law.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence” John Adams

Support Firefighters Mar 2, 2016 - 8:41 am

Jim Frazier has become a joke. He claims to support public safety and loves our firefighters yet will not even help his own fire district. Am I reading this right that he will only provide a bill if the impossible happens? If someone credible would run against him, they would have my vote. He should be thrown out of office and go back to pounding nails with arrogance like that.

Why are we just now finding out about these laws now. Where has our fire board been and why did they not correct this information months ago? And people wonder why the ECCFPD is in trouble, they cannot even correct misinformation by a group trying to sabotage them.

Bill Moon Mar 2, 2016 - 9:03 am

I am confused on Mr. Hardcastle’s flip-flop from a week ago. He told the Brentwood Press that he supported the ECV plan and now he does not? Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am not happy about this editorial, I would like a solution that involves the taxes we already pay. I am tired of new taxes. I am tired of these politicians fighting and telling us what cannot be done. They need to start putting plans out there that can be done. I think you went overboard attacking this plan ECT and think you should at least discuss it further before blasting it. It can be done per the law and that is what these people do not want to admit. It would be approved if it went to court. You are just an A-HOLE!

EastCountyToday Mar 2, 2016 - 9:06 am

To explain the flip-flop, it really wasn’t one. We reached out to Mr. Hardcastle for clarification on his Brentwood Press quote. He said he was misquoted and misrepresented.He supported the concept of bringing ideas forward, but recognized the fix must come from Sacramento, not from local entities.

Forrest Mar 2, 2016 - 12:33 pm

Mr. Moon,

You say “this would be approved if it went to court”. Psssssst, Its not headed that way. The laws are clear and the responsible parties understand this.

You don’t pay enough taxes into this fire district. Why is that so difficult for you to understand. 1+2=3, it will never equal 10. Its the most basic of math. You can’t pull money out of thin air.

Since it would not ever go to court by all accounts, what does that make you? A liar? Gullible? Ignorant? Or just a garden variety “A-hole”. (Your word, not mine).

Unome Mar 2, 2016 - 9:21 am

A tax would have been supported before making this a non issue except the rogue poor decisions by the fire board killed the chances each time. Today the tax option is again feasible provided the fire board does not make more poor choices. If the fire board would follow the conditions of the BOS funding BEFORE or CONCURRENTY placing the new tax on the ballot they may have a chance to get back on track. That would be Changing the name, Electing board members, and finally a tax amount that will put this issue to bed so we can move forward.

I do applaud any group that attempts to assist in correcting the funding issue. It is better than what has been done. I also think using schools as an example for redistribution is disingenuous. The impact spread out would be almost insignificant.

Voter925 Mar 2, 2016 - 10:31 am

This is an opinion of one paper and one man who have little to no credibility. Shame on you Mr. Burkholder for blasting residents who are trying to find a solution. Instead of putting ECV down, you should join them in working to find ways to make it work. Instead, you are on your high horse sabotaging a citizens effort which is more than you have ever done. This would stand up in court and it would be doable if every entity agreed which is why Mr. Frazier said what he said.

You are not providing news, you are pushing an agenda in this piece.

Big Mac and a side of fries Mar 2, 2016 - 11:15 am

@Voter925 are you a court judge in your spare time or do you just pretend to be one on the blogs? When, where and from whom did you get a legal opinion this crock would fly? Because it sure looks like you are the one spouting baseless opinion.

If the blog owner has no credibility, why are you acting threatened?

You got trolled by Frazier, plain and simple.

Forrest Mar 2, 2016 - 11:22 am

@Voter925,

Just like a bad penny you show up with nothing to offer from the lowbrow commentary delivered from your keyboard.

This ‘Opinion” by East County Today is backed with a barrage of qualified statements from elected officials in and about our region who have credibility and moreover, responsibility. The rogue group ECV has neither and operate through chaos, innuendo and disregard for rules which we all must live by. Strike one.

This website is not a “paper” and the comments offered up were not generated by “one man”. Strike two.

One doesn’t join up with a band of fools unless he plans on becoming one of them. If that is your plan you are a great fit for the ECV group.. Strike three.

Be careful Voter925, that large chip on your shoulder and inferiority complex is showing again. East County Today is not in anyway shape or form on a “high horse”. He is actually doing his job, doing homework and offering up real world comments from those we elect to represent us. Too bad other publications don’t follow suit. They are content with shallow articles, or reprints of copy stuck between silly ads and pet of the week pictures. Perhaps that is more of your style and how you extrapolate your intel on important issues. Its no wonder your commentary is so consistently off the mark.

Its no leap to see that Mr. Burkholder has done much more for providing accurate information to the citizens of East County than this unaccountable group of disingenuous individuals calling themselves ECV. Apparently they are to stupid to realize the acronym ECV is already used by E. Clampus Vitus, aka “Clampers” who are known for their ridiculous antics. How fitting.

So if you actually believe “this would stand up in court” then please, further embarrass yourself by explaining your credentials for making that bold statement. You can begin by listing your law degree I presume? Your vast experience in government law? Because from the article, it has already been explained why it won’t even get close to court, because it isn’t going anywhere but away. And that comes from the individuals with credibility, credentials and experience in the matter.

Voter925, You are not providing commentary, you are showing us firstand, what stupid looks like.

The Truth Mar 2, 2016 - 12:26 pm

If you want the truth

Fire District Citizens Committee Releases Meeting Schedule
February 29, 2016, Brentwood, CA — The East County Voters for Equal Protection (ECV) today announced their meeting schedule for the months of March, April and May. On Thursday, March 3rd, the group will meet at 3 pm at the Raley’s Event Center, 2400 Sand Creek Road, in Brentwood. The Event Center is located within the grocery store, next to the Pharmacy.
The public and all interested parties are invited to attend. Future meetings will all commence at 3 pm at the same location, the Raley’s Event Center, 2400 San Creek Road, in Brentwood. Committee meetings will be held as follows:
• Thursday, March 3, 3 pm
• Thursday, March 17, 3 pm
• Thursday, March 31, 3 pm
• Wednesday, April 13, 3 pm
• Wednesday, April 27, 3 pm
• Wednesday, May 11, 3 pm
• Wednesday, May 25, 3 pm
The ECV committee has developed a voluntary program that would shift $7.8 million of the current $154 million in property tax funds collected within the fire district boundaries to the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD). The program follows procedures outlined in the California Revenue and Taxation Code and elsewhere.
These funds would allow the district to permanently open and staff three additional fire stations with no additional taxes imposed on residents. The special assessments appearing on tax bills would not be effected.
Currently the ECCFPD is funded with the lowest property tax allocation percentage of any fire district in Contra Costa County. This allocation level is one-fourth to one-half of those levels that exist in other parts of Contra Costa County.
# # #
“East County Voters for Equal Protection” is a non-partisan grass roots citizens action committee formed to address the unequal funding of fire and emergency medical services existing in 249 square miles of Eastern Contra Costa County. About 110,000 residents, as well as those who work and play in Eastern Contra Costa, have services funded at a level one-fourth to one-third of those levels in other parts of Contra Costa County. For more information contact committee Co-Chairs Hal Bray at [email protected] or Bryan Scott [email protected]. The group’s Facebook page is https://www.facebook.com/EastCountyVoters/

Forrest Mar 2, 2016 - 12:40 pm

Everything but the Truth, Please stop spamming this site.. YOU are the problem, not the solution. “The effort appears entirely rooted in ideology with little understanding or implementation of practical planning.”

Any move that begins discussing Prop 13 reallocation begins with self-awareness and honesty. Two things lacking by the ECV Group and the public should not be duped into wasting any more time on a concept that is dead on arrival and serves as nothing more than a distraction from the issue at hand.

Your ignorance is impeding your judgement and at this point, you are making yourself look pretty foolish.

Unome Mar 2, 2016 - 12:54 pm

For all you negatory special interest commenters, specifically the baseball umpire. I thought the people were in charge of this county and country. Bernie has not won the White House yet. There is still time for democracy and will of the people. Take your scare tactics and notch them down. This is why the previous solutions failed. Anything to help ECCFPD by the public is welcomed.

It's 4:20 somewhere Mar 2, 2016 - 2:24 pm

@unome, thanks for demonstrating how to string 6 random and barely related sentences together into something that makes absolutely no sense.

Don’t think the synapses are firing correctly, my friend.

Forrest Mar 2, 2016 - 3:38 pm

@Unome, scaling back your meds again? You know you don’t make sense when you are acting all crazy. If you want to debate with adults, try to not make yourself look so challenged and unhinged.

The elected officials are the ones we elected to be in charge of this county and country. They can’t possibly please everyone, least of all the reality challenged. You seriously think ignorant individuals pushing their unrealistic agenda’s will get far? Just like Bernie winning the White House, keep dreaming.

There are no scare tactics, just reality. You seem to be struggling with both. Time to put down the kool-aid.

Take your fantasies and notch them down. Might want to start by loosening the aluminum foil hat covering your empty dome.

and Nick, some opinions are MUCH more valid than others. (You probably missed that since you admittedly skimmed for information).

ECV= Zero credibility. As the author said, their plan is DOA.

Nick Mar 2, 2016 - 5:30 pm

Forrest, I would agree that some opinions make more sense than others. But keep in mind you’re blogging with strangers, not your close friends and family. And a disproportionate amount of people here aren’t very bright. I skim for a reason…

Forrest Mar 2, 2016 - 9:04 pm

Nick, you are right and I agree with you. Point well taken.

Nick Mar 2, 2016 - 2:28 pm

I read 2/3 of the editorial, and skimmed over the comments… bits and pieces. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. PERIOD.

jb Mar 2, 2016 - 4:06 pm

face the facts…. if the resolution to this problem simply required the fire chief to go out back and dig up a pot of gold the politicos and union would find fault because a tax increase was not accomplished.

They want to levy an additional tax because that is what they do and that is all they are capable of. We are not talking about people with true drive to solve problems we are talking about folks that only know how to take and spend. And when they spend they do so in ways that do not necessarily match the priorities of those who are paying the taxes.

Too bad there will never be a ballot measure that allows the taxpayers to prioritize the key public services they want properly funded prior to hand outs and government overhead (read .. ridiculous bos staffing budgets).

How do you think the vote count would turn out if the public was able to decide if the bos got to keep all their staffers or if the funds for say 5 staff positions were to be shifted to on-the-ground public safety personal? It would not even be close.

How about each bos candidate making a commitment to, if elected, only have one office and to reduce their district budget by 50%, shifting the saved dollars to public safety. I’ll bet not a single one would go for this voluntary redirection of tax dollars as it might take some of the cush out of the pension, sorry I mean job, they are seeking.

#jeffe has blown a gasket Mar 2, 2016 - 5:19 pm

jb, you must be this tall to ride the ride. Sorry lil buddy, but once again, just like your comments, you come up “short”. Have you forgot you live out of the state and don’t contribute? We haven’t.

Get lost troll.

Unome Mar 3, 2016 - 10:13 am

How many aliases are you gonna use to degrade and attack others Mr Gump ? Haven’t you got anything productive to contribute ? Talk about trolls
Geesh ! Is this how you and your buddy are going to educate people to vote a new tax ? Let’s hear some real positive ideas for our fire district if you actually have any ?

Human Mar 2, 2016 - 5:19 pm

Politics is one of the largest impediments to the future evolution of mankind.

Forrest Mar 3, 2016 - 12:12 pm

@ Unome,

Ahhhhh, there’s that trademark inferiority, “chip on the shoulder” comment once again, accompanied by a string of unrelated thoughts. I will assume you were referring to me or my postings which point out the obvious. Let’s just say, I do know you.

As I read your postings one thing comes to mind: it doesn’t matter whether you post under one alias or several, you consistently contradict yourself. It’s real schizophrenic behavior on your part. Nick said it best: “a disproportionate amount of people here aren’t very bright”. If my pointing it out disturbs you, so be it. You will need to get over that. Yeah, I’m talking about you.

Unfortunately you have me confused with someone else. I am not in favor of a new tax and I am certainly not pushing one. There are no positive ideas for the fire department which is why we are stuck in the position we are. A solution isn’t viable and in such cases the situation needs to play out. You don’t know me nor do you know what I have contributed. Don’t pretend to judge.

You want a good idea? Supporting a bad idea which is what this article and the ECV group is all about, is a bad idea. I have no solution and have not heard a single one that makes any sense in leading to a positive outcome.

Firfox Mar 5, 2016 - 11:32 am

@Forrest,
If you have no solution nor anything positive to say on any fire district funding subject, why do you keep running your mouth with diarrhea? Are you just another PieMan?

Hal Bray Mar 6, 2016 - 3:40 pm

I just returned from an out of state vacation and read Michael Burkholder’s hit piece, “Anti-Tax Group Should be Honest with Public in Fire District “Hail Mary” Solution.” First, let me thank him for what he wrote about us. Although inaccurate or just plain wrong on many of his points in the article, he has provided more coverage for us (East County Voters for Equal Protection or ECV) and helped further the conversation on this issue. We are only focused on the safety and well-being of the district’s residents, visitors, and employees, and this discussion will help. Thanks, Mike.

So, now a response on a couple of issues in the “editorial”. We (myself and Bryan Scott) have requested meetings with Mr. Burkholder by email, telephone, and face-to-face, and we have invited him to our meetings. But in all cases he has refused to attend or meet with us. We, in fact, publish our meeting dates and locations and open the meetings to anyone who would like to attend (for example, anyone and everyone commenting on the editorial). We specifically copy Chief Hugh Henderson and Brentwood City Manager and Task Force Leader Gus Vina on our emails, and have invited them to our meetings. We are open about everything we do.

Next, Mr. Burkholder repeats several times that what we are doing is illegal and then quotes several people who say it is legal. (David Twa, for example). Mr. Burkholder should read his own material (or maybe, write it). We have the Legislative Analyst Office document he quotes (in fact, we gave it to the person who gave it to him). We also have the manual for County Auditors/Controllers on the mechanics of allocating property taxes and copies of the State laws on allocating property taxes. We have met with County Controller/Auditor Bob Campbell. We have no intention of wasting our (or anyone’s) time doing something that is illegal. What we are doing is legal and what we are proposing is equitable for all parties within the District.

Next, Mr. Burkholder writes that we (ECV) ”… have openly admitted to rejecting any form of taxes….” This is completely wrong as we state often, orally and in writing, that we support placing a ballot measure for a new tax to fund the fire district, if necessary, on the ballet AFTER property taxes are reallocated among the public agencies within the ECCFPD boundaries. We believe EVERYONE should participate in the solution, including public agencies, not just taxpayers. So let’s support reallocating property taxes to open three more stations, giving the fire district six, and then place a tax measure (what the Task Force calls a “revenue enhancement,” whatever the hell that means) on the November ballot for additional stations.

Mr. Burkholder also does exactly what he says we do by using “clever quotes”. We have met with or talked to just about everyone Mr. Burkholder quotes in his article and let’s just say he brought “poetic license” to new heights in the journalism world. We stand by our statements.

Finally, we are ready and eager to present to any group that would like to hear from or meet with us. We ask the Task Force to do the same. We are the ONLY citizens group working to fund the fire district and the only group that publishes our meetings. The Task Force is composed of public officials, who have either an interest in helping the fire district or a conflict of interest in protecting their own agencies (or both, you choose), and union officials who are frustrated with the lowest pay in the county and just want to see revenue from somewhere. We are willing to work as part of the Task Force, but our request has been turned down.

I have a suggestion/request: Mr. Burkholder should sponsor a public forum and let us speak to those who are interested in hearing what we are proposing. Let’s have this conversation in public, not in the comment section of his “news” blog site. And let’s do it soon so we can build public support for an equitable solution to the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District’s funding problem by the start of the next year.

—Hal Bray, Co-Chair, East County Voters for Equal Protection

Mike Burkholder Mar 7, 2016 - 3:02 pm

Hal,

While I respect you and your efforts, I simply do not agree with you. You appear angry at me when your focus should be at the laws. Rather than address what was stated by multiple people, as well as the law, you focused on me. It appears you do not want to address reality, but instead attack the messenger.

I am curious on the “inaccurate claim” considering the laws were quoted along with my speaking to David Twa and Bob Campbell. Even Supervisor Piepho and other elected officials admit to your plan being a no go. Yet you continue to state David Twa says its legal.

I would like to reference an email from Bryan Scott to David Twa admitting TWa stated its not going to happen which Bryan repeated. Not sure why we are still even discussing this at this point.

Furthermore, BUSD is going for a bond this fall, per the law, they are now off limits since they have no extra money. You can also county out the City of Oakley who are going for a library tax. What you are proposing, is a MOU every year, its not a one-time fix for multiple years as you claim. a MOU is much different than focusing on reapportionment.

You write: “Although inaccurate or just plain wrong on many of his points in the article, he has provided more coverage for us (East County Voters for Equal Protection or ECV) and helped further the conversation on this issue.”

I disagree; it highlighted just how obnoxious the idea is. It reminds me of the movie “Dumb and Dumber” where they says 1-million to one and the response is “So there still is a chance”. You can be focused on the safety all you want, just do so within the law and should be something realistic, such as focusing your energy on Sacramento, not the county.

I am not going to spend my time on a plan that is DOA—that is a waste of my time and every one elses. If I am going to insert my time on a solution, it will be with Mr. Vina and others who are willing to work within the laws of the County and State, not something that is apparently going rogue and outside the laws.

Inviting the public is great, but if no one is willing to participate, perhaps you will eventually get the hint.

Hal, I have no interest in doing your work for you with a public forum, you have one every Wednesday and could manage one just fine. What is interesting is your suggesting folks get into the vehicle before the final scene of Velma and Louis. Thanks, but I will pass up the wild ride you are on.

I wish you the best and hope you can adjust your plan so that I can someday get behind it.

Cuckoo for CoCo County Mar 6, 2016 - 8:20 pm

@Hal, what’s been keeping you from putting on your own forum? Why are you expecting someone else to do the work?

Just for the sake of clarity, this is your “plan”, right? After many months and lots of your group brow beating people in this forum and in emails you have crafted this:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7SrigE1V71cMGkwZ05LYWpnbmc

You’re expecting 1 million residents of Contra Costa County to completely dismiss existing revenue modeling, giving up services from the Sheriff or EMS or road maintenance or any number of other county and city supplied services based on this fill-in-the-blank plan?

Does this lobbying effort of yours get any more ridiculous or have you finally bottomed out?

The gist of the editorial was that your effort is vague and lacking many details. Does the document(plan) your group has produced dissuade anyone from coming to that same conclusion?

Anonymous Mar 7, 2016 - 11:17 pm

Holy crap Batman, that’s their plan ? OMG…that’s no plan! That’s a glimpse into a 2nd grade school project that got graded a D. Do the followers of mr. Bray know he brought a rubber band to a gun fight ? His followers are gonna be reallllllly disappointed.

This plan needs to be posted in an opened up version so EVERYONE can see that these bozos have no effin clue.

Oh, yeah, these clowns need to be commended. Hahahaha !!!!

Forrest Mar 8, 2016 - 10:40 am

Mr. Bray, it is evident that you frequent this website. I didn’t see any real substance in your repose to Mr. Burkholder’s editorial. From what I see you survive with fragments of information and partial statements which cannot be backed up in full context. You are indeed playing word games with the public. It begs the questions; what are you really up to? And what if any support do you have by officials, managers and electeds? Does your group have even one single official backing your plan?

If you don’t want to take the time answering those simple questions, then why should anyone follow you or support ECV?

One final question. Is the plan posted here in a link by Cuckoo for CoCo correct? If that is your plan you have a hell of a lot of explaining to do. I opened that attachment and it is incomplete and appears to be nothing more than a wish list.

Thank you should you choose to answer the questions.

Unome Mar 7, 2016 - 8:39 am

The thing that appears ridiculous is a cuckoo commentor whom is hell bent on talking down to people. The commentor ” Cuckoo” is either a plant to gain internet clicks or a person who hates the fire district. Ten to twenty aliases with disturbing negative comments is a serious concern this person has a fixation on making sure the fire district fails all attempts to a solution. Sad and pathetic is this troubled person.

Any and all citizens willing to help in a solution for the fire district should be commended. Others should be criticized.

Cuckoo for CoCo County Mar 7, 2016 - 9:29 am

@Unome, thanks once again for making it all about you.

People are asking fairly simple questions trying to understand the plan and you’re calling them idiots for having the nerve. Great way to win allies for your effort.

10 to 20 aliases? You may need to schedule an immediate appointment with your therapist. What’s disturbing is this cult-like behavior and inability to discuss the issue like a rational adult. Everything is viewed as some conspiracy by you people.

Cuckoo for CoCo County refers to being happy to live here, if you hadn’t figured it out.

Anonymous Mar 7, 2016 - 10:55 pm

Unome, when you act like a dimwit, that is how people talk to you. I’m surprised you haven’t realized that is how it works. No one is going to treat you with respect, especially when you don’t earn it.

You are so preoccupied with things that don’t matter that you lose every debate.

What a dink.

Unome Mar 7, 2016 - 10:31 am

The only thing I conclude from your posts is you are a POS troublemaker and always have been. You are also cuckoo too.

Anonymous Mar 7, 2016 - 11:05 pm

unome,

You just went full retard! Congrats on your new status!

I only wish I was trolling at 10:31 so I could have taken full advantage of your disadvantage!

Comments are closed.