The following information was submitted by Vince Wells, President of Local 1230, who provided a Legal Opinion regarding the Statements made by opponents of the Benefit Assessment proposed by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District.
The fire District is asking residents between $100-200 (depending on property type) to help keep fire stations open.
The Legal Opinion highlights that some of the statements being made by the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association are untrue and misinformation.
Vince Wells Submission
I am Vince Wells and the union president of Local 1230 and represent the firefighters of East Contra Costa, Con Fire, Rodeo Hercules, Pinole, El Cerrito, and Moraga Orinda. I work for Con Fire. All 6 of these agencies have different pay and benefit levels in which ECCFPD are of the lowest.
Attorneys for the fire district have guided the board of directors through the process of a benefit assessment along with a consultant group who has done this before. So with that, we believe it is legal for a fire district to utilize this process. As with any other process, the voters should be able to determine the outcome.
The efforts from those on this site and others who try to prevent the vote from occurring should be questioned as to what their motives are.
The facts from a firefighters perspective is that you cannot cover 250 sq miles or protect a 100,000 people with 9 firefighters. If the grant expires and the stations are closed what is Alex and the CoCo Tax clan offering as an option other then this. Your tax rate will not go down if the service level drops. They have never offered a solution; not for Measure S or Measure Q or WXYZ for that matter. They throw out numbers, ideological rhetoric, and threats of bankruptcy to trick the voters in this district and other districts within this county.
ECCFPD is only one of 17 agencies within CCCERA (Contra Costa County Employee Retirement Association). We are not part of the state retirement system (CalPers) for pensions. They cannot go bankrupt due to ECCFPD’s ability to pay.
ECCFPD will have to simply close stations in order to have the money to pay the bill before that would happen. ECCFPD is not a city department like Stockton, Vallejo, or San Bernandino, or Detroit, its a independent special district that is self reliant and self supporting. The pension cost shot up during the stock market crash and the property tax revenue that funded the district was greatly decreased by the housing market crash. On top of all that, the property tax rates established in East county during the prop 13 decision in 1978, was set at a rate established when east county was a farm town only. This rate is half of the tax increment collected in the rest of the county.The collection rate cannot be changed so the only way to make up for the growing towns and increased residential and commercial property is a new source of revenue.
The firefighters pay their required portion of pension contribution to assure no future unfunded liability. This amount is much more than our brothers and sisters in the state system pay (CalPers) for the same benefit. This District was formed in 2002 and has seen less then a handful of retirements since the district was formed. The retiree list displayed by the tax payers association don’t include true members of the ECCFPD. A decision was made to have them share the unfunded liabilities with Con Fire when they decided to depool the unfunded liabilities of the 17 agencies in CCCERA who had been established for years. Why should be asked.
The bottom line is this; you cannot cover 250 sq miles with 9 firefighters. We have debated the volunteer issue, pension issue, and alternate service delivery model for years. If you are a resident in east county please come out and do the research as to what it takes to have an adequate level of fire and emergency services. We provide fire and emergency services to you, your friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers. We protect the property you live in, frequent, work in, and patronize. Unless you are one of the ironman who love to post on this site and who most don’t live in this service area, please check yes when you receive your ballot. It has to pass first in order to become a legal matter. In the meantime, you will have time to do the necessary research to get the facts. This county is unprepared for a major emergency as it is; with the loss of 12 fire stations within the county and a major hospital; a earthquake, flood, major fire, hazardous material incident or any other major catastrophe will bring this to everyone attention. Why wait until than.
The following is a letter from Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP explaining why the Benefit Assessment is Legal and explains the myths the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association are fibbing about.
To: Vince Wells, IAFF Local 1230
From: David L. Barber
Date: August 13, 2014
Re: Myths and Reality About the Proposed Fire-Prevention Assessment by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
The Contra Costa Taxpayers Association (“CoCoTax”) has made a number of assertions about the proposed fire-prevention assessment that would fund increased services in the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District. CoCoTax has asserted that the proposed assessment runs afoul of Proposition 218, which places certain limits on property assessments.
However, the proposed assessment appears to be designed to comply with the requirements of Proposition 21$. Unlike police or EMS services, fire suppression services provide both general and special benefits for property that is within a service area. The proposed assessment would fund only special benefits received by property within the district, not general benefits. It calculates the amount levied on each piece of property depending on a number of factors that determine how much special benefit that property receives.
In addition, contrary to CoCoTax’s claim, the district’s need for another revenue source is primarily due to declining property-tax revenues, not increased
Myth: “Police and fire services are a general benefit” and thus cannot be funded through a special assessment.
Reality: Fire services provide both general and special benefits to property located within a fire district.
Prop 218 allows the special benefit portion to be funded by an assessment district that is subject to a vote by the property owners who would receive the special benefit.
Proposition 21$, adopted by voters in 1996 and now part ofthe state constitution, places certain limits on assessments and other methods that local governments use to raise funds. In particular, if a local government district proposes an assessment on property within the district, the assessment has to receive the votes of at least 50% of the property that will be assessed. The assessment must only be used to pay for “special benefits” as opposed to “general benefits” to the entire community. And the assessment on each piece of property must be proportional to the special benefit that the property receives.
The ECCFPD’s proposed assessment is careful to separate out special from general benefits, as required by Prop 218. Only the special benefits from the proposed additional services are to be paid for using the assessment funds.
Fire-suppression services obviously provide some general benefits to the community. The Engineer’s Report that evaluates the proposed assessment specifically separates out the general benefits that come from fire-district funding, including EMS, services to motorists passing through the assessment area, and other services.
But according to the Engineer’s Report, the main benefits that will come from increased fire-suppression services are special benefits to the properties within the district. This makes sense, because the main purpose of fire-suppression services is to prevent property damage by fire. The Engineer’s Report identifies the special benefits that would accrue to property within the district as a result of increased fire-suppression services. These include greater fire protection for property that is near the two fire stations that will be kept open with assessment funding, a more timely and direct response to fire calls (resulting in decreased damage when a fire occurs), and increased fire prevention due to increased education, inspections, and code enforcement.
Fire Services Are Different From Police Services
CoCoTax is being misleading by talking about police assessments and Prop 218, because what’s at issue here is an assessment for fire suppression.
Police services and fire-suppression services are treated differently under Prop 218. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office report on Prop 21$ (December 1996), police services are unlikely to meet Prop 218’s definition of “special benefit.” By contrast, the same report notes that fire assessments that existed when Prop 218 was passed would probably have to be modified to separate out special from general benefits. ECCfPD’s proposed assessment separates out special from general benefits and only funds the special benefits with assessment
Emergency Medical Services are similar to police services, since they do not give an appreciable special benefit that is tied to property parcels but rather benefit any person who happens to have a medical emergency while within the service area. The ECCFPD’s Engineer’s Report specifically sets aside any consideration of EMS funding for this reason. By contrast, fire-suppression services provide both general and special benefits. Thus, under Prop 218, the special benefits can be paid for using an assessment, as long as the assessment of each property parcel is proportional to the amount of special benefit received.
Myth: Funding fire services in part via a benefit assessment would violate Prop 21$.
Reality: Prop 218 allows property owners who receive a special benefit to vote on an assessment to fund that benefit. Fire-suppression services provided by ECCFPD create both special and general benefits. The proposed assessment only covers the cost of the special benefits. CoCoTax is using misleading and incorrect legal arguments to try to deny property owners the right to vote on whether to tax themselves to provide vital fire services.
One decision from the California Court of Appeal overturned an assessment that was to fund fire services.’ However, the California Supreme Court set aside that decision without issuing its own opinion on the issue, and no other California court has ruled on the question of funding fire-suppression services by means of an assessment. Thus, there is no binding case law that prevents using an assessment to fund additional fire-suppression services that provide special benefits to property within the assessment district. Furthermore, the assessment that was at issue in the West Point case was significantly different from the assessment proposed by ECCFPD: according to the Court of Appeal, it conferred only general benefits, and it was not assessed proportionately.
The Engineer’s Report for the ECCFPD carefully separates out the special from the general benefits. It also uses an evidence-based formula for determining how much special benefit each property parcel would receive, based on factors such as property use, fire-sprinkler installation, distance from fire station, and whether the property receives any fire-protection benefit funded directly by the state. Thus, the assessment is designed to comply with the requirements of Prop 218.
Myth: “Spiraling pension costs” are forcing the district to cut fire service.
Reality: Declining revenues are forcing the district to cut fire service. The property taxes that fund most of the district’s fire-suppression activities are capped by Proposition 13, passed in 1978. Current budget projections by the district show revenues falling from $13.2 million in 20 13-14 to just $10.2 million in 20 15-16, and then rising very slowly after that. CoCoTax expects the district to perform a miracle: keep the same level of fire services while revenues drop by millions of dollars a year. The reality is that given current revenue projections, the district will have to cut services. The proposed assessment would increase services over the baseline budget projection and would provide additional benefits to properties within the district.
Actual Document: Memo re Myths and Reality – Fire assessment 8-13-14(1)
21 comments
I’m with Vince Wells on merging with Con Fire. I’m not sure about his ability to deliver “legal opinions” regarding the questionable legality of this BAD tax. Yet again, I don’t put anything past this fire union. When labor budget costs approach increasing pension contributions you will have less services. That is a fact.
John (posing as “Chuck”)
You are nothing more than a tool. If you had a brain you would be dangerous.
The intention of Prop 218 is that a benefit assessment will give property owners a benefit which they do not already have, like a new park, sidewalk improvements, new streetlights, etc. With this “benefit assessment” the voters are threatened with a REMOVAL of existing benefits should it fail to pass. Completely opposite to the spirit and intention of the original proposition. The ECCFPD failed to pass a lawful parcel tax increase (which required a 2/3 supermajority to pass) and instead of listening to the will of the voters, they are attempting to sneak this through instead (as it requires only a simple majority to pass). I am not surprised similar benefit assessments have been challenged in court. I hope this one is as well. I am fine with seeing lawful tax increase measures on regular ballots – leave the decision to the voters! But this is really quite sneaky and underhanded of the ECCFPD. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth, to be honest. Furthermore, information that was mailed out with the ballot was written by ECCFPD and was completely biased! Why was the opposition not given the opportunity to provide a rebuttal? This should have been mailed out in the same package as the ballot. Whatever your views on the tax increase are, all voters should be given the opportunity to read dissenting arguments and come to their own conclusion. Trust the intelligence of the voters! If the ECCFPD really felt they had the support of the voters, they would have placed a fair and lawful parcel tax increase measure on the ballot, complete with arguments for and against mailed to the voters. Obviously they do not feel they have the voters’ support (as evidenced by the outcome of their last attempt) if they are resorting to tactics like this.
Sacramento Bee Editorial: Metro Fire Chief makes right choice to pull tax(benefit assessment)
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/10/6311182/editorial-metro-fire-chief-makes.html
Thank you CoCoTax, but Sac Metro Fire isn’t even close to what is going on here both geographically and financially. I really don’t know how you people can sleep at night considering that you continue to mix apples and oranges, you continue to spread misinformation, and for a public watchdog organization that should conduct itself with some objectivity and integrity you continue to post biased OPINIONS, half truths, and lies. The worst thing about it is that if you are successful peoples lives will undoubtedly by adversely affected and no matter how expensive you feel it is to fund the fire service in east county it will pale in comparison to the alternative.
it is not accurate to call this a “Legal Opinion”. It is a memo from a law firm, but that is *very different* from an actual Legal Opinion. Not commenting on the memo here, just on the misuse of the terminology “Legal Opinion”. Mr. Wells is incorrect in terming it as such.
You are such a fool DA. Its obvious who pulls your puppet strings. What a wusy.
Answer a couple of questions with facts and the pile of DA you normally dish out.
From Prop 218…..
5) No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners. Reliance by an agency on any parcel map, including, but not limited to, an assessor’s parcel map, may be considered a significant factor in determining whether a fee or charge is imposed as an incident of property ownership for purposes of this article. In any legal action contesting the validity of a fee or charge, the burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate compliance with this article.
My questions are;
#1) Based on this information is this an independent district if not it is dependent, Can a dependent district create a benefit assessment without going through the County Board of Supervisors?
#2) Does a benefit assessment violate proposition 218 when created for Fire Suppression and EMT ?
If it is questionably illegal and you do it anyway, you will loose trust from the public.
I just read the Sacramento Bee link. Educate yourself DA fool.
Johnny, speaking of educating fools, how about you attempt to read a nice little piece of the California Government Code Section 50078 which states:
50078. Any local agency which provides fire suppression services
directly or by contract with the state or a local agency may, by
ordinance or by resolution adopted after notice and hearing,
determine and levy an assessment for fire suppression services
pursuant to this article. The assessment may be made for the purpose
of obtaining, furnishing, operating, and maintaining fire suppression
equipment or apparatus or for the purpose of paying the salaries and
benefits of firefighting personnel, or both, whether or not fire
suppression services are actually used by or upon a parcel,
improvement, or property.
It’s not exactly a mystery on where you should have looked. It’s mentioned in the engineer’s report. You know, the document on which the decision was made to move forward with the benefit assessment.
Just curious, johnny. Since you and your buddy Don are playing this like dogs chasing a car, what happens if you catch it? You ever think about that one?
3 station catastrophe for the residents of East County and you standing there with your pants around your ankles having played a significant role in bringing it to fruition. Wouldn’t want to be you fellas when the public figures out you lied them into that mess. Tsk, tsk.
Mr. Wells,
Thank you for providing your thoughts. If you had the powere to fully implement your vision, and were able to control the political outcomes throughout the County, we would probably solve this problem for good. Unfortunately, there are so many forces in play that a coherent plan has little chance. And I’m not sure this BAD tax is part of a coherent plan.
Perhaps we can agree on a couple of points:
First, The district bought and paid for a legal analysis to justify what amounts to last ditch effort to obtain sorely needed revenue. That’s what consultants and attorneys do for their clients; that’s how they earn a living.
In the world of risk management, the question would have been asked of the consultants and attorneys: What are the chances of a successful lawsuit against this BAD tax? If it was asked, I am certain the answer would cause voters to pause before approving it. As an “eyes wide open” proponent of this BAD tax, what do you believe the chances of a successful legal challenge are? Go on the record here. Show us how wide open your eyes are.
Neither you nor I are judges, but I believe we both understand that there is a legal argument in favor of each position. The absence of a current legal memo from an attorney on behalf of the taxpayer advocacy group on a measure that hasn’t been implemented is meaningless, don’t you agree?
Second, pensions costs for ECCFPD are, according to the district published budget, increasing over the next several years, while salaries of active firefighters are decreasing. The increasing pension cost is not the only, or perhaps even the main reason the district is in dire financial distress, but it is a component of the negative cost vs. revenue picture. What percentage of the 2016-17 budget is earmarked for retiree benefits? For pensions?
We know that budgeted pension costs will be greater than salary costs, agreed?
Finally, reasonable people can object to this BAD tax vote and still appreciate and support firefighters and the need for proper funding to provide for public safety. Demonizing opponents of this tax is beneath the importance of this issue and does not serve the proponents’ cause.
Is that fair enough?
Don and John, let’s be real shall we?
Once again you pose straw man type questions on a message board in some warped attempt to solicit an answer to your liking. I doubt of Mr. Wells in going to fall for that again. What is it with you clowns? You think if you ask the same questions a dozen times you might eventually get someone to side with you? That tactic has never worked for you. Are you both that mentally shallow?
It is common sense that if either of you were really seeking the rightful answers you would call Contra Costa LAFCo, your local County Supervisor and the Fire District. They have the only answers that matter and would easily put your “concerns” to rest. Readers here should be asking themselves, why haven’t you contacted the appropriate sources.
It’s pretty simple right? We all know, it takes the same amount of small effort to pick up the phone, visit an office or even google a phone number to those key resources? But neither one of you can do it. Why? Many of us here know the answer. That’s right, you both have in the past, but when you get “disagreement” (and you always do) you throw a fit. You don’t know how to deal with anyone telling you that you are wrong. You see, neither of you respect anyone who has a differing opinion because you don’t respect yourselves. As a result you have no credibility! How frustrating that must be for the both of you. Constantly asking loaded questions, only to be ignored. I call it poetic justice, but you poor saps have to live with it every day. I cannot imagine how you get through life like that? If it wasn’t for a severe case of denial, you couldn’t! You are both extremely transparent and everyone here has a good handle on you by now. Perhaps it’s time to consider relocation? It wouldn’t be the first time would it? You both are obviously not happy here.
Too bad the joke is on the both of you. You see, you are stuck with your diminished capacities which is the nexus of your problem. It doesn’t matter where you go or where you land. You are both stuck with yourselves. Why don’t you collaborate on that for a while?
That’s the most direct answer to all of your “questions”.
Now run along you two. I’m sure you have to do some brainstorming (between the two of you) so that you can somehow fabricate a position of denial.
This is all a very simple concept, It is up to the parcel owners(The people who really should be deciding) to decide if they want the basic service of 3 stations or an enhanced(special) service of 5 stations. Some want to argue that 5 stations is the basic service however, this stopped being the case in 2012 when 2 stations were closed permanently. The only reason they were able to open up was a federal grant. During those 2 years the base service was still 3 stations.
Yes, people can challenge the assessment if it is passed. That is the right of the people, however your tax dollars will go to pay the for defending the assessment and that has the potential to cost much more than the assessment will bring in. So the question would be what is a better use of our tax dollars? Spending a little extra on enhanced fire service, or spending tax dollars on lawyers and court time to defend against “Tax crusaders” who just tie up our tax money in legal matters. The district doesn’t have much money so choose as you will. It’s remotely possible that the money used defending an assessment could drop the district to 2 stations due to funds being diverted. I don’t think the board will just drop it, There is nothing left to do to enhance revenue.
As far as pensions, Everyone really needs to get over it. There is nothing that can be done about the costs. If you want to complain then complaint to the retirement board. They are the ones raising the rates. Pension reform has happened, Retirement benefits have been reduced and employees are paying more.
Luckily I am seeing more positive than negative about this topic and I am glad to see that. It’s always the few that stir the pot..with guesses and not actual facts.
I will be voting yes multiple times as I own multiple parcels.
Bob Mankins letter on benefit assessments ……
This is an excerpt from Bob Mankin post on this site the last tax go around. According to the author, he knows, he brought it to the boards attention according to him.
DA writes regarding the fire district,
In the earlier thread (via Facebook), Director Steve Barr offered a bit of detail about why the assessment was not pursued. It wasn’t due to the CoCoTax opposition.
It was because it was a legally indefensible figure, obtained through a polling process that the California Supreme Court ruled in July 2008 was illegal. I know, because I brought this to the board’s attention at the time which is what gave them pause and ultimately resulted in Counsel advising them to abort the effort.
The ruling, if anyone is interested in looking it up, is Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association vs. Santa Clara Open Space Authority. The gist of it is, you cannot collect a benefit assessment if you cannot show me that I’m getting a dollar of services for the dollar I gave you. It’s different from a special tax in the way that money can be used. Now it has the advantage of a lower voter threshold and that may be a source of the opposition on Ms. Hunt’s part. She would have to weigh in.
http://www.calafco.org/docs/Court_Decisions/Supreme_Court-Benefit_Assessment.PDF
The entire letter is in the archives here. This is just another reason why the district continues to have problems.
Thank you Bob and all your aliasses for providing this valuable information to the landowners who may foot the bill again for this fiasco.
You can call me Ray, Jay, John, or Johnny it makes no different as I chuckle when you grasp at straws. Your petty digs and deflections from the facts is what I have seen in all your responses. It’s actually comical. The sad fact is, I have contacted several LAFCOs, I have contacted Cal Special Districts, and others agencies because doing things correct the first time is always better than faking your way through life. You of all should know this.
LAFCO does not recognize this district as independent, the district is not an official member of LAFCO because it does not qualify. I’m sure you already know this and somehow are baiting me for your delusional reply. My questions are not looking for a sided answer, only the factual truth, Since you, DA know everything. I thought I would offer you a chance to factually provide an answer. Obviously you can’t or have been instructed not by your puppet master to deflect the truth. The two questions have merit and the public needs to know the real truth not the political mumbo jumbo lies that plague politicos such as yourself. That is the difference between an open government and your puppet masters government.
Run along now with your pocket rocks and aliases because the general public is much smarter than you may think.
John, you suck at reading English almost as bad as you do attempting to write it.
Why do you struggle so trying to string together coherent sentences and paragraphs? Your rants are flat out painful to read and attempt to decipher. Is there a Rosetta Stone package for Gonazles to English I could buy so as to understand you?
Point to the section of the law that was copy and pasted above which requires it to be an Independent Special District. You can’t. It’s not there.
The law makes no distinction between Dependent and Independent Special Districts. It only says local agency. A Dependent Special District is still a LOCAL AGENCY.
Grasping at straws indeed. You should take a break from that bad habit.
ECCFPD is an independent district as defined by the law. Here is a link to the state controllers office list of Independent special districts.
http://www.sco.ca.gov/files-ard-local/locrep/districts_lafco_lafcofy0304.pdf
Here is another link to LAFCO acknowledging that ECCFPD is a recognized special district. As a matter of fact, There was a LAFCO action in 2009 in regards to ECCFPD “District boundary and modified SOI were approved.”
Chuck really needs to do his homework instead of making stuff up in his fantasy world.
Here is the second link
http://www.contracostalafco.org/local_agency_directory.htm
Your wrong David because one thing that never happened in 2009 that was a condition for the district was a public vote for commissioners.They did not do that and still have not. LAFCO puts them as a district but does not recognize them as a an “independent district. You need to do your homework. Like DA and Clue pick up the phone and call LAFCO. If the district was independent then the officials on the board that are elected to another position would have to step down for one or the other. This was brought up by Bob Mankin of Discovery Bay back then. Someone even asked a mayor to step down because of it. ECCFPD is a district but not an independent district. Like the other puppets say, you are entitled to the facts but you can’t make up your own. Check the laws about publicly elected officials maintaining seats in two different offices. Just because ECCPD is on a district list is far from being an independent district. That is why any board member on the ECCFPD is not eligible for a LAFCO seat. David need to research just a bit more as you are wrong. Thus the question if this entire BAD tax should have had went through the BOS.
Here’s a thought, take some of your own freakin’ advice!
This topic has been discussed here before. If you spent the 5 minutes it would take to read the pertinent section of the California Health and Safety Code that pertains to formation of fire districts, you would find this section
13837. In the case of a district which contains unincorporated
territory and the territory of one or more cities:
(a) The district board may be elected or appointed by the county
board of supervisors and the city councils in which the district is
located. If the district board is to be appointed, the board of
supervisors and the city council or councils shall appoint directors
according to the proportionate share of population that portion of
the county and each city within the district, provided that the board
of superviors and each city council shall appoint at least one
director. The board of supervisors or city council may appoint one or
more of its own members to the district board. In no case shall the
number of directors exceed 11 members.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the county board of
supervisors may appoint itself as the district board, if the city
council of each of the cities consents by resolution.
Can you do a little better with reading simple English today than you did last week? That’s actual English language being used there to point out that holding both seats is allowed by law.
But oh look, it’s a two-fer! Because Don Flint just got done whining that the BoS appointing board members was somehow inappropriate and there is that pesky existing law proving him wrong again!! Ohhhhh, the humanity!
You’re still struggling with a fairly simple word in the earlier citation: AGENCY. The law does not distinguish between independent and dependent districts when it comes to who can move forward a benefit assessment.
Your major problem, John, is people in Sacto who write this stuff use logic and common sense. They don’t go into a debate with pre-determinded outcomes and bias like you do. They instead just read the law and act accordingly.
Be better if we could drop the acrimony.
In all fairness to David, he did check his facts, but this district, it’s formations, and even it’s current status is convoluted. It is not an independent special district; Chuck is correct, but even the info David found and presented tends to support what David says. Not really his fault. Who knows, had the county formed this correctly from the start, held elections, and allowed/forced it to be truly independent, we may have had a better result. Not likely, but possible.
I know one thing, having the BOS continue to select district board members and therefor have the ability to exert control over the district doesn’t help.
I am surprised the BOS hasn’t found a way to help fund the election of board members just to strengthen their denial of responsibility for our financial mess. Finding that money to wash their hands of our mess seems like a no brainer to me.
I would suggest in addition to dropping the acrimony we also drop the smarmy straw man attempts too. Like the one you just pitched to Vince Wells.
But I’ll bite, Don.
How does the District select board members? Both of the County seats came up for volunteers recently. Why wasn’t yours or johnny’s app submitted? What’s the conspiracy angle you’re setting up with that line? Because anyone who knows your history can see your setups from a mile away.
The County hasn’t picked in any real sense. The seats have been basically filled the last two rounds by default from the only people who volunteered.
The County doesn’t form fire districts. That’s LAFCO’s responsibility. Local Agency Formation Commission. You mean the title didn’t give it away for you?
Once again you’re showing you have no understanding of process and through ignorance or deliberate deception, you are choosing to ignore the history and demands of local officials to move this fire district into local control.
The County is not your sugar daddy and you kinda look pathetic with this continued expectation of a hand-out from them. Just like the whole raiding the EMS money thing, you can’t seem to grasp basic revenue flows and restrictions on how the money can be spent.
But keep up the panhandling if you must.
Clue,
That is a description of a dependent district fool. The subject is talking independent Did you confer with the rocks in your pocket for that mumbo jumbo? Your entitled to your opinion but you can’t apply statutes describing and apple when your looking at oranges.
Comments are closed.