Editorial: ECV Group Continues to Mislead Public on Fire District Funding Plan

Earlier this month, we highlighted a plan by the East County Voters for Equal Protection (ECV) that we believe is neither realistic nor legal. Still, they continue to tout their plan and mislead the public.

This week, they announced the endorsement of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, a likely partnership due to the groups anti-tax stance. Here is the statement provided by Jack Weir, President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association:

 “Since 1937 our organization has promoted “good government at affordable cost” in our county.  While traditionally much of our focus has been on fiscal issues, we are mindful of the importance of high quality community services and are alarmed at the dire situation in the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District.  The  lack of adequate facilities and staffing has caused an unacceptable drop in emergency response times, threatening the life and safety of residents and those passing through the area.

“Although some aspects of the district’s fiscal circumstances are shared by other fire agencies in the county, its low tax rate is a fundamental problem, which can only be addressed by a more fair and equitable allocation method.  The recently formed grass roots citizens group East County Voters for Equal Protection (ECV) has devised a reallocation methodology that will solve this long-time challenge and allow restoration of services to an acceptable level.  Further, the method will only require a modest contribution from those agencies in the area that rely on the district for critical emergency response.  The reallocation proposal is feasible and requires only the political will to accomplish.

“CoCoTax fully supports ECV in this effort, and encourages all elected officials and voters in the area to join ECV in resolving this issue,” said Weir’s prepared statement.

The endorsement should be taken with a grain of salt. The Taxpayers Association has fought previous attempts by both East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and Contra Costa Fire Protection District for supplemental funding and thus has further put lives in danger by killing taxpayer measures on public safety.

What the public should understand is that the ECV plan will never happen. It’s fools gold that fire service will be improved without some sort of supplemental funding until a long-term fix can be made in Sacramento.

If you are taking funds from 30-agencies, you are then putting 30-agencies in a position to be underfunded who then hypothetically would then need to go for a tax of their own to bring their funding back up.

It is our opinion this plan is intentionally aimed at confusing the public in an effort to kill any future tax attempt.  Both the city managers of Brentwood and Oakley agree.

Furthermore in a March 14  email by Oakley City Manager Bryan Montgomery to an Oakley resident, he stated the likelihood of the ECV plan moving forward while stating the harm they are doing to confusing the public.

Per his email, he stated the following:

A re-work of the 1% property tax is a worthy ideal, but as proposed it would have about a .00001% chance of ever happening.  What it might do is lead voters to believe it is a viable option and then harm another more viable and financially adequate funding measure.  As I’ve told Bryan Scott, the negotiations of the reallocation should come after this measure, as neither on their own will solve the problem, but together they might.

Still, ECV’s Bryan Scott and Hal Bray (co-chairs) continue to misinform the public and now apparently the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association are joining them in this mission to stir mass confusion while the ECCFPD is set to begin polling.

ECV summarizes their plan in three paragraphs:

This program calls for the 30 or so government agencies who now receive property tax funding within the fire district to shift a total of $7.8 million of the $154 million of property taxes collected within the ECCFPD jurisdiction to the fire district.

The ECV program would follow 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 current special assessments appearing on tax bills would not be effected.

The ECV program calls for the agency recipients of the ad valorem property tax to voluntarily shift a small portion (5.2 percent) of their property tax allocation percentage to the fire district. District taxpayers would not be asked to pay any additional taxes. Phasing in the program over a number of years would mean that no current budgets would be cut, and the reallocated amount would be less than the expected growth in government revenues. No current budget expenditures would be affected, but each agency’s funding would grow by a smaller amount.

Contra Costa County Administrator David Twa finally put his foot down in February saying the plan was not going to happen. Scott, in an email acknowledged Mr. Twa’s statement, then ignores it. Furthermore, David Twa provides six-points as to why the plan is not feasible.

The email chain is below:

Mr. Twa’s bluntness was even noted in a follow up email by Mr. Scott highlighting the words of Mr. Twa saying “it’s not going to happen”. Here is a copy of that email from Scott to Twa:

Hi David-

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me yesterday. Even though it was a brief, 15-minute meeting, we accomplished a lot, and it was clear that you had read-up on our proposal and spent time preparing for our meeting.

Your opening comment of “It’s not going to happen” really cut to the chase and set the tone for the meeting.

The structural funding problem faced by the ECCFPD has gotten progressively worse over the last twelve years as the East County area has experienced rapid and significant growth. As this growth continues so too will the disparity between fire district service needs and property tax funding.  This problem will not fix itself.

And so our group has been reaching out to members of Brentwood and Oakley city councils, to members of the board of supervisors, to fire district executives, to leaders of community organizations, and to industry consultants, all in an attempt to find a solution to the problem. We are open to hearing from all parties on this issue.

Thanks again for your time.

–Bryan

In a February 29 email, Mr. Twa laid out six reasons why the plan would not work. Here is what was stated:

—–Original Message—–
From: David Twa
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 4:49 PM
To: Bryan Scott
Cc: Bob Campbell
Subject: ECV Fire District Funding Plan

Bryan – thanks for the opportunity to talk with you this afternoon about your proposal to have the Property Tax Reallocated to provide more funding for East County Fire.

As I advised you:

1. your plan would result in approximately $971,000 being taken from the Contra Costa County General Fund, and a total of over $1.2 Million from all the County funded Districts such as Library and Flood Control Districts.

2. Such a reduction in funding for the County would require the County to back fill this loss from other County funded Departments, or to look at possible future reduction in services.

3. The County has already reduced the number of ConFire stations we support from 30 down to 24 during the “Great Recession” and if we had an extra $1.2 Million I would certainly recommend that the County first look to restore one of these closed stations before we would look to fund other agencies.

4. My understanding of the law is that the School Districts are prohibited from transferring their Property Tax to any other agency, and since you indicated that the School Districts make up 59% of the dollars you are requesting, the net effect is that at best you are likely to only find a few small agencies who could afford to transfer their tax even if they were willing to do so.

5. Unfortunately, your proposal is not likely to produce the kind of revenue you are trying to generate, while at that same time you create a disincentive for people to support any ballot measure designed to increase revenue for East County Fire.

6. Finally, you asked if other taxing entities authorized the transfer, would the County Board recommend those transfers to the County Auditor. I am not certain that it requires the County Board to do that, and I suggest that if you are continuing to go down this path, you work with the County Auditor to make certain that you follow all the correct procedures.

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks

Although we have stated our opposition of the EVC plan, here is a list of comments and statements made by leaders at the County and City levels through a series of interviews or pulled from email exchanges.

Here is what Bob Campbell said regarding the Revenue and Taxation Code while also sharing the LAO:

Bob Campbell, Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller, 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).

State of California Legislative Analyst Offices (LAO):
“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.

Gus Vina, the City manager of Brentwood requested the ECV group stop giving the public the impression that he supports the plan. He also acknowledges that ECV was only using a portion of a report that supports the ECV effort and excluding critical parts.

Brentwood City Manager, Gus Vina:
Hal and Scott.  So here we go again.  I don’t appreciate the fact you put my name in an announcement without the courtesy of letting me know it is going out.  More importantly, why are you using only a portion of the report and words that support your effort and exclude other critical parts of the report?  For example, why did you not say that the task force supports and is exploring a tax measure?  It is clear to me you took that out of context to make it appear as though I support ECV’s effort to reallocate property taxes, which I have made clear to you that I do not.  I guess I will need to go very public to clear the record and make sure the community is not mislead

I kindly ask you again not to use the task force report, and more specifically my name, without at least the courtesy of a notice to me and I encourage you to provide the entire report’s recommendation rather than portions that suit your needs.

Meanwhile, Oakley City Manager Bryan Montgomery says the ECV effort would

Oakley City Manager, Bryan Montgomery;

Bryan (Scott):

I have hesitated to jump in to all of these emails, but I wanted to reiterate what I mentioned to you via email a week or two back. The grassroots aspects of what you are doing is admirable, and addressing the problems with the 1% allocation is a great idea, BUT the Fire District is in immediate need of financial support and the 1% property tax allocations at this point will only hurt the probably ballot measure that would provide the more immediate funding (taxpayers could think that the reallocation is the full answer and will vote down the measure).

That ballot measure would not likely support all of the financial needs and AFTER its passage the 1% reallocation discussion would be prudent to help fill the gap.  Also, the 1% reallocation (if ever achieved) would only fill a small portion of the need.   If your primary concern is the long-term viability of the Fire District, we need a parcel tax measure NOW and the reallocation measure after.

I also mentioned in my email to you that you are SIGNIFICANTLY underestimating the reallocation process.  The 1% allocation is a zero sum game and persuading the “losers” in that process to agree will take a significant amount of time, if ever achieved. Further, the minimal amount that the “losers” may concede to is no where near the revenues needed by the District. Though, as I stated above, that amount could be helpful to the District to supplement what the ballot measure will not be able to fill.

Again, thank you for your efforts to help the District, but I urge you to be cautious and to not unintentionally damage the financial support a ballot measure would provide. (I don’t wish to engage in an email dialogue on this, but wanted to re-state my strong feelings on the matter)

Regards,
Bryan H. Montgomery

Elected officials who have been targeted of the ECV Group:

Oakley Mayor, Keven Romick;
“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.

Brentwood Council & Fire District Commissioner Steve Barr;
“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.”

County Supervisor Mary Piepho:

Bryan, Thanks for keeping me in the loop and please continue to do so.

To be clear I don’t “support” you and your groups plan and wish to make that clear right now.  I believe that there are elements of your vision that have some long-term merit if handled appropriately and by the right people, but I simply don’t see you being successful or meeting the needs of the ECCFPD under your current operation.

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.

I remain gravely concerned that there is lots of time for op-eds and local gatherings but only the narrowest of effort for a business plan and/or plan of action on how you will be successful in meeting your goals on the tight time frame considering the multitude of agencies, public meetings, identification of local revenue impacts and most importantly the need for protection and enhancement of fire safety services.

I wish you would lend an ear to those who are trying to guide you and encourage your efforts to be more team oriented.  There is a lot of wisdom and experience out there and many are interested in working collaboratively.  No one person has the one solution.

County Supervisor Karen Mitchoff’s office

Over the past couple of weeks we have been receiving emails and outreach from Mr. Brian Scott, who represents himself as a very concerned resident of Brentwood and East County. He recently wrote two Op-Ed’s in the Times the last of which posted yesterday, links below. He, along with a small group of East County residents have convened and are strategizing on long-term solutions to the District’s fiscal problems and he has asked whether I would convey his message back to the task force. He is advocating for Prop 13 reform, specifically to allocate property tax funds. We are not supportive of what he is suggesting.

Local 1230 President Vince Wells

“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.”

Diane Burgis, East Bay Regional Park District Trustee,

“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, Oakley City Councilman

“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.”

It’s time for an honest debate on a long-term fire fix rather than wasting time and effort on a plan that will never happen. The fix remains in Sacramento, not locally within Contra Costa County.

It would behoove publications and media to put some additional effort into screening “Guest Commentary” and “Letters to the Editors” to at least ensure its accuracy and feasibility, even after officials state the reality of the situation.

After all, those with the answers versus opinions are just a phone call away.

By Michael Burkholder
Publisher of ECT

To contact the publisher, email [email protected]