During both the Brentwood and Oakley City Council meetings Tuesday, the councils voted unanimously to support a recommendation by a fire task force committee to assist the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District.
On Tuesday, Brentwood City Manager and Task Force Chair Gus Vina presented the task force findings to both councils, identical to the presentation at the ECCFPD Board Meeting on Nov. 2.
According to the proposal, the 4th Station, whose location has not yet been determined, would open in January 2016 and would increase the staffing of firefighters on duty from 9-firefighters to 12-firefighters. The cost would be $2.3 million with the City of Brentwood, City of Oakley and the County splitting the costs based on calls for service within the District.
Station 94, Knightsen
Under the proposal, the 4th fire station would be open for a 16-month period to serve as a bridge for the public who could then decide whether or not to support a revenue enhancement. It’s estimated the station would then re-close in June 2017 without an approval of a revenue enhancement by the voters
In total, here is what each stakeholder would pay over the course of 16-months:
- ECCFPD: $873,978
- Brentwood: $666,000
- Oakley: $382,202
- County: $311,617
- Total: $2.33 million
In total, the Task Force provided three priority recommendations for the fire board to consider.
- Consider a 2016 Ballot Initiative to fund ECCFPD: an exploratory team to be assembled to evaluate an initiative to fund the ECCFPD and if appropriate, launch the campaign at a later date.
- Use Best Practices to develop an Unconstrained Model for Fire and Ambulance Services (Master Plan): The task force recommends the engagement of consulting services for the development of a financial and operational plan that would identify how fire and medical services should be delivered in the existing ECCFPD with assumptions of population growth for the next 25 to 30 years. The task force further recommends that subject matter experts from staff be included in this discussion.
- A Fourth Fire Station: This would increase daily staffing by 25%
The ECCFPD Board on Nov. 2 accepted these task force report in a 6-2 vote.
On Tuesday, Gus Vina provided the report to Oakley followed by Brentwood.
ECCFPD Fire Captain Gil Guerrero highlighted during the Brentwood meeting that his District is running calls all day long and all day night noting that just two of the 29-firefighters are under 40-years old.
Vince Wells, President of Local 1230, thanked the council for allowing the city manager to take on this endeavor of a Task force calling it a breath of fresh air.
“I think as all of you who served on the board at various times, everybody that went through this process knows there is a fundamental problem here. It’s not the leadership of our fire board, it’s never been even though they seem to be targeted a lot. The issue is the finances,” said Wells. “When LAFCO formed the District in 2002, their recommendation was that you had to find a funding source to make this District sustainable because of the projected growth of the area. The growth has taken place… but the fire service has not kept up with the growth.”
Councilman Steve Barr called the recommendation a stop gap and he supports the effort.
“One of the significant things for me was the sheer ability for two cities, a county and other stakeholders came together to come up with a solution,” said Barr. “I think that is as great of step as our interim recommendation to open a fourth station. That is more significant than opening a fourth station as we move forward. I support the recommendation as proposed.”
Vice Mayor Joel Bryant highlighted that it was made very clear that a fourth station is woefully inadequate for fire protection.
“We really do not have a fire protection district,” said Bryant. “We have a fire respond and hope you can keep it from burning down a neighborhood situation. The thing that a fourth station will do is assist us in the ratio of auto and mutual aid. It will give some call relief on the call burden of the Brentwood Station (52).”
Bryant further reminded people that just because they see a fire station building, doesn’t mean people are in it that you can call to help in an emergency. Most of the time, they are somewhere else already.
“A building can’t cut you out of a car, a building can’t fight fires, a building can’t perform CPR, so just because you drive by and see the fire stations does not mean you are protected and covered,” explained Bryant. “These men are already on calls. I want you to understand the reality that if you call 9-1-1 for a medical or fire emergency in the city of Brentwood, there is a probability that you will not have anyone answer you in time to help you because they are probably on another call. They will probably show up way beyond that magical golden five minutes to save your life if you are in cardiac arrest.”
He further highlighted the reality the District is facing on calls where the District has been uncovered for as much as 8-hours by the ECCFPD while people of Brentwood may get a response from an engine company out of Pittsburg.
“That is not scare tactics that is everyday reality we live in right now. The necessity that we have to forward this effort is absolutely essential… we cannot afford to not make these steps. It will help are firefighters who are already overburdened with an additional 9 firefighters to spread out the workload.
“We cannot allow our firefighters to be put in this situation of danger,” said Bryant. “That is just my two cents.’
Councilman Erick Stonebarger highlighted an obvious communication problem with the District in general saying the District has failed twice going after new revenue.
“Out of the seven communities, just two communities voted yes. The balance voted no. There are no’s of 67 percent, 60 percent, 59 percent, significant numbers of no that got there. I am not sure what that last piece is to convince them. I am not sure they are afraid enough. I am not sure if they have realized it. I am not sure what it is,” said Stonebarger. “I know a lot of them like to blame it on lack of knowledge, but ignorance is no defense and it’s in a bad spot and I think we can all appreciate that.”
He noted that at some point, something was going to have to change whether the public pays more or they take a stop from building to stop deepening the hole suggesting all solutions need to be discussed to get to at least a fifth station in the future.
The Brentwood City Council voted 5-0 to approve the resolution implementing the task force recommendations.
Earlier in the evening, the City of Oakley took up the issue where they approved a fiscal impact on the city of $600,000 where they used money hrough a fire assessment at Summer Lakes Development.
Captain Gill Guerrero highlighted a half-dozen calls in the last 24-hours where the Station 93 in Oakley has not even been in Oakley to provide coverage to the people of Oakley. This special tax is applicable to 629 parcels in Oakley in Summer Lake which is 97% are built out.
According to the ECCFPD, the budget includes a contribution to the General Fund for services and costs associated with the CFD’s special levy to be collected on the property tax roll. Revenue is transferred to the General (operating) Fund to help support services in this area.
Captain Guerrero encouraged the council to accept the recommendations highlighting a half-dozen calls in the last 24-hours where Oakley’s engine was not even in the city protecting its residents.
Captain Gil Guerrero
“I want to encourage the city council to take this opportunity, because it’s an opportunity for this city council to do something big for your city. Your city is so under served, it’s really sad. If you go to Antioch, they do not have the condition of fire service that you have in Oakley, and it’s sad working here knowing there is so much deficiencies in your fire district in Oakley let alone the rest of the district,” said Guerrero. “This is an opportunity for the fire board to stand up and really move forward and solve a big problem we have been facing for 20-years.”
Councilwoman Vanessa Perry stated she had hoped the fire chief’s recommendation is heard–referring to the fire board who may make the final decision on which fire station will be the 4th station opened. She also noted her support of the District saying she hoped a future tax would pass and the public could get behind it.
“This is a serious thing; this is why it’s come to this. We are in an emergency situation. This cannot be stressed enough this is a temporary fix,” said Perry. “It’s not sustainable for Oakley to be paying into the fire district.”
Councilman Randy Pope reported that all the financial figures that were discussed at their lengthy fire board meeting last Monday had been worked out, were reconciled and are confident that it’s accurate.
“I supported this on the fire board, I support this on the council, and encourage everyone to support it,” said Pope.
Oakley approved the motion 5-0.
With the Brentwood and Oakley City Councils now approving the recommendation, it now moves to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors who will decide if the county will accept the report and provide their portion of the suggested funds.
38 comments
Vince, they also recommended a combination district and that didn’t happen. A lot of things didn’t happen.
Thank you Gus Vina City Manager for stepping up and leading. Hopefully others on the board will do the same.
Ridiculous the county can’t get it’s act together to properly tax and distribute funds for the fire district. There is no reason that Brentwood and Oakley are having to foot the bill on this county issue.
Hopefully a ballot initiative will get floated and people will take it seriously. An extra hundredish a year is nothing compared to what our insurance rates will rise if these response times and lack of coverage become permanent.
For the umpteenth time.
It’s not a County fire department and the County does not control the revenue streams the department receives.
That is a state level problem.
The County only represents 17% of the constituents in this discussion. The cities represent the rest.
Sean, why would the county provide property tax? Hasn’t this tax thing been explained enough? The county serves as the tax collector and then distributes money prescribed by the state of California, outlined by proposition 13. Our fire department isn’t even a county run agency, it’s a district independent of the county. Hope that clears up any confusion on that.
For the money that is being floated to the fire department, it’s told that all 4 entities including the county are going to fund their fair share with enough emergency money to temporarily keep the district afloat in hopes that the community and task force come up with a solution. That’s what has been put on the table so far. I don’t think either city or the county has to put this money up, but the fact that they are doing it as a good will gesture is a good thing. It will be up to us to support a funding stream to fix this once and for all or decide if the 3 fire stations that we have, will be the level of service we are ok with. Ultimately the choice is ours, the cities of Brentwood, Oakley and the County are just giving us a final opportunity to have one last chance to make an educated decision. I hope we have learned by now that 3 fire stations are not enough to cover our district. I pay too much for insurance now. I really don’t want to find out what happens if we lose what little protection we have, because by then it will be too late.
Local
We had a combination District when the consolidation was done, it wasn’t until years later that they went to full time professional department. We had less POCs and a series of times when POCs did not respond in a timely manner or sometimes even at all. We went to shadowing calls in POCs jurisdictions with a full time paid engine to assure a response. Finally going full time all around. Increased community growth,, an increase in training requirements, rules and regs, and POCs getting full time paid jobs all contributed to the deterioration of the combination fire district.
Vince, you are 100% correct. Unfortunately there is no accountability for those who created this mess, yes the BOS, and a slim and none chance it gets turned around soon.
For Why, you are always quick to blame the BOS (board of supervisors) and yet you never provide details. I’ve been following this, attending a few meetings and must say I completely disagree with your position. From what I have learned, the board of supervisors turned the district over to local control 8 or so years ago and when they did the district was healthy and had a lot of money in the bank. It is only during the last 8 years that the money was all spent and most of the fire stations were closed. How do you continue to place blame on those not running the district and ignore those who are? I ask, where is your accountability to your assertions… or are you just trying to make sour grapes? To me, your posts often don’t jive with history or reality. This is a serious situation for most of us, I wish you would grind your axe somewhere else.
I have read and learned that the County is supposed to pay for medical that the firefighters provide. The fore district doesn’t go yo the county to pay for those medical calls and the county doesn’t offer to pay.
Cool story bro, I’d ask you to tell it again ‘cept you have read and learned wrong. The county is not supposed to pay for medical that the firefighter’s provide. The county is and does pay for the medical that AMR provides. That’s a fact Jack.
I suggest you check your sources because whoever told you the County is responsible for funding the FD medical is lying to you.
Now take another’s hit and have a bowl of Doritos with your buds.
@Dan, I disagree entirely with your characterization of the District being “healthy” when the BOS turned over control to a Local Board. It was apparent then–to anyone who looked closely–that the District was burning thru its reserves rapidly, and that drastic action was necessary. The Service Model they had perpetuated was also inadequate. The BOS was told this by the 2006 CityGate report, and that additonal funding would be needed.
That was why the local Board instituted the drastic cost cuting measures as one of its first actions.
Sounds suspiciously like buyer’s remorse there Director Smith.
You knew going in that the District needed revenue. That was known well before 2006 and yet you watched(as you have boasted here previously) and still demanded a shift to local control.
It was understood between all parties at the time that a ballot measure had better chance for success if a local governing body brought it forward instead of the Supervisors bringing it from Martinez.
So what’s with the history rewrite and deflection of responsibility?
You have spent a disproportionate amount of your tenure here blaming the County, as have a few other governing body members. You remember the County, don’t you? The same people who are deliberating on throwing you a financial lifeline next week. I for one hope they don’t forget all the bad mouthing you all have engaged in over the years.
Your local governments let you down terribly with their mismanagement the past few years. I do feel sorry for your new insurance rates because I would be forced to not have coverage if I lived there. I don’t thank goodness. You are on the hook for this money and you need to look longer range than you are.
Julio, you make good points. I don’t know if we can go without insurance since it is usually a condition of our mortgages. We do need to look long term. No one else is going to bail us out.
Dan, respectfully, you obviously have been served the wine from the tax and spend gurus. If you follow the history back when the county was responsible you may come to a different opinion. There are still thousands of residents that are still upset over the destruction of the previous successfull model. You must be what the old timers call a new comer. New comers are described as moving in the area wanting to change everything that was working fine. It will probably take a generation for all the hurt and disappointment to go away. At that time a new tax should pass easily unless the board continues to make poor discussions. They are getting better though.
Local, respectfully, I don’t drink wine and I really don’t know who the tax and spend gurus are. Actually, I don’t even know what you meant. I’ve been following the history and still don’t know what you mean. Who has been tax and spend when it comes to the fire district? I’m personally unaware of any taxes above the small amount that we pay, about 1/2 of everyone countywide. If I’m incorrect please direct me to your sources. I would appreciate it.
Also, I’m not sure where the thousands of people that you claim are upset are. I’ve not heard that. Are you sure the old model was successful? I’m puzzled why you would wish to pit old timers against new comers. Proposition 13 makes newcomers pay a higher property tax for their homes, while old timers property taxes are tied to their lower original purchase price. Do you understand how that works? It means in likelihood the newcomers are providing more funding for the fire department because of a higher valuation of their homes.
As for me, I’m not really a newcomer. I’ve lived in the county close to 60 years now, so in your opinion, how long does it take to obtain old timer status?
Sorry for all of the questions but you made a lot of assumptions that need qualification if you are to be taken at your word. All I ask is that you be more specific.
Further more Dan, the cities and county are ponying up money that already are from taxes. They probably already belong to the fire district and were manipulated because the fire district is separate by their description. What is ironic is the county and cities are enjoying all that added revenue from development they created while the left the fire district in the cold. It continues too. The county and cities should bring the fire district to the table before any more homes are built.
Local,
Bring the fire district to the table??
Is English a second language for you or something? Your posts over the last 3 days make sense about 25% of the time. The rest are grammatical train wrecks. Coupled with the tinfoil hat conspiracies, it’s painful to read.
If you don’t understand that it’s general fund money that all of the County contributes to, then pick up a telephone already and call an elected official. Educate yourself instead of turning this blog into one big bitchfest for the socially handicapped.
Can you bother to engage in adult dialog? You know, give and take. Like instead of talking right past someone, you actually ask questions, get answers, then extend the courtesy of answering the questions the other party posed to you? That’s an example of productive dialog on an important issue. What you’re doing here is wasting everyone’s time with whining while you do your level best to make it all about you.
Life don’t work that way. Time to get over that petulant child approach you got going there.
.
Was looking into the leader of this “task Force” Gustavo Vina. Here is a little background from the San Diego Beacon:
City Manager Gus Vina avoids performance review- resigns
Encinitas city manager Gus Vina was scheduled to receive a performance review in January. In a move that shields him from public comment he has resigned.
Mr. Vina came to Encinitas in 2011 from Sacramento where he served as the interim city manager. He was not offered the position permanently after he received what was reported as a “vote of no confidence”. Prior to this he worked for Stockton, which is now bankrupt.
One reason Mr. Vina might have received a vote of no confidence was that he rewarded department heads with pay raises at a time when the city was experiencing financial challenges. Such decision making is often symptomatic of leaders seeking to consolidate power.
By most measures his performance in Encinitas was below standards. During his tenure debt and liabilities increased while infrastructure projects were underfunded. His leadership lacked transparency and he expanded bureaucracy making it difficult for residents to monitor city business.
His first moves as city manager included hiring department heads he refered to as his “cabinet”, requesting pay raises for some city employees and later hiring the city’s first ever public relations specialist to control public messaging.
Mr. Vina came under fire for often acting unilaterally. In 2013 he failed to inform the council he was entering into an agreement with the developer law firm Rutan and Tucker until after the contract had been signed. In 2014 the public learned after the fact that he had contracted with the controversial company Peak Democracy.
Mr. Vina also received criticism for witholding information. In 2014 he invited the tax raising consultant Catherine Lew to address the council on a process to raise taxes. The day of the meeting Mr. Vina had received an email with a cost estimate of $168,000 dollars but when the council asked for a detailed cost estimate they were told by the consultant $100,000.
His financial recommendations were troubling. He claimed the city finances were in good shape recommending the council take $7 million from funded projects but today those projects remain unfunded. He supported the council paying $10 million for the Pacific View site that appraised for near $4 million when the city is $6 million behind in building repairs. Rather than seek responsible spending it seems he looked for ways to raise fees.
Mr. Vina was a key player in the failed General Plan Update costing more than $1 million dollars. He has spent an estimated $300,000 thus far to orchestrate the public feedback process on the unpopular Housing Element Update that some are calling community manipulation.
Mr. Vina revealed himself to be a shrewd politician able to discern which way the council wind was blowing. In 2012 he cancelled a city council meeting one week before the election that benefitted then Mayor Jerome Stocks who had been caught on video-tape violating city election ordinances that came to be called “Sign-gate”. The cancelled meeting prevented the public from commenting.
In his final act it appears Mr. Vina concluded he no longer had the support of the council majority. He had been scheduled for a review in January that was unexpectely moved up to November. Council member Lisa Shaffer claimed it was to let outgoing council member Teresa Barth comment. The review was held behind closed doors. A few weeks later Mr. Vina resigned and Barth left office. For all of the city’s talk of transparency we will never know what was said.
It is rumored that Gus Vina is headed back to Northern California. His annual salary in Encinitas was approximately $225,000 dollars and Encinitas taxpayers are responsible for an estimated $24,000 dollar a year pension payment to Mr. Vina for his 3 short years of service upon his retirement.
Written by Andrew Audet
Is there any wonder his only recommendation thus far has been “revenue enhancement by the voters”? His track record seems to keep the status quo of bloated, secretive, failed public servitude that is interested in self perpetuation with no regard to the citizens that get stuck with the bill. He should be great bed fellows with the ECCFPD.
First, thank you for posting the source. Looking at it, the last three entries were pretty telling for a publication
1. City Manager Gus Vina avoids performance review- resigns
2. City manager unprepared for council meeting, questions surround Little League
3. Questions surround timing of city manager job review –
If my timeline is correct, Vina was hired by Brentwood which is why he would not get a review in January. My advice, don’t believe everything you read online and verify.
Andrew Audet is a self-appointed citizen watchdog offering his opinion, is he not?
The closing comment is the most telling in my mind. Translated, this is a hit piece from a “no new taxes” interest. Agenda and M.O. noted.
The task force has recommended much more than just a revenue enhancement. The need for a revenue enhancement for the fire district has been recognized for more than 10 years. Well before Mr. Vina arrived on the scene here. We can debate the source of the revenue all day long. But the absolute need was determined and settled a long, long time ago.
It’s unfortunate that whenever these attacks surface they are delivered in such cowardly fashion and offer no meaningful solutions. ECCFPD is at 3 stations for a reason. Yet all we get are people unwilling to look at the issue honestly. Instead content to push pure ideology, even at the expense of public safety.
Homes are now becoming total losses when previously they could have been saved. Homeowners are receiving massive 300 and 400% increases in their insurance premiums. We are only at the leading edge of that fiscal wave.
This isn’t the time for hit pieces and word games. If registered voters cannot or will not step up and address the issue with more integrity and objectivity than Mr. Johnson did here, we’re going to be in even deeper trouble. Inside of 2 years we’ll have a less than 3 station model and no way out for many years to come. Consider for a moment the consequences of that and if you’re willing to accept them. At the end of the day, you’ll still get to decide.
The dialog on this issue needs to advance beyond those who are inviting public safety anarchy with some perverted belief that they will come out on the backside having forced their agenda. That’s irresponsible and those pushing that approach need to be called out for what it is.
Nobody likes paying any new taxes and all avenues should be pursued to avoid it. But at the end of the day, if no other viable option can be put together for funding, the voters are going to have to decide. Is avoiding them at all costs more preferable than having adequate public safety services protecting their families and their property. It’s going to come down to a basic quality of life question and yes, it will probably be asked at the ballot box from all indications.
I hear a lot of jibber jabber from you Clue about insurance rates yet no one I know has has the kind of increase you jab about. Maybe we can get ECT to provide before and after docs on your claim.
Yeah, Mr. Local, example were probably hard for you to find. Since it was reported on this very blog just about 10 days ago.
https://eastcountytoday.net/resident-sees-large-insurance-premium-increase-due-to-poor-eccfpd-fire-coverage/
Thanks for NOT paying attention.
Buy a clue, you ROCK! Thanks for calling out these dummies. We have a serious situation facing us and all they can do is play stupid games. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Y’all need to grow up and get a life instead of posting idiotic ranting. Stupid should hurt!
Clue & meo. What will make you understand that the the people have spoken twice! You guys are the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. You can go on and on with your chicken little statements but its over, done, live with it and move on.
So your answer is to live with 20 minute response times? To tolerate insurance rates climbing to the point of forcing people from their homes? Tolerate purely defensive fire fighting where the first home is automatically lost and you’re just worried about not losing an entire block of them?
That’s your “move on” suggestion?
Lecture me some more about insanity.
Do you live in the District?
Hey Mike, You are right, the people have spoken to a set of ballot measure that were poorly written, poorly rolled out and done after a non existent educational campaign. I happen to believe the voters of this community deserve a chance to make a final decision based on information. So far what they have received is “chicken little” statements from some real low brow thinkers on this site. You want the definition of insanity? That dude “Gustavo in espanol” is a case study in insanity. Why wouldn’t anyone want to make an educated decision? So far the voters have been denied that option. You must have missed the memo and the meeting that took place earlier this summer. A packed room of people at the fire board meeting demanding a re-vote. This is not a joke, its reality…and the reality is, if this opportunity is blown by people like you then the rest of us must suffer with what we currently fund… which is most likely 2 fire stations to cover the entire district. That doesn’t work! If you are stupid enough to shoot yourself in the foot then fine, you will bleed to death. Homeowners insurance will cost you 2 to 3 times as much and you will get no service. Does that reality sound appealing to you? Guess what Mike, if this fails, the department will cease to exist. I sure hope you aren’t one of those nimwits that believes fire protection is a right. Iv’e got news for you, it isn’t. I challenge you to come up with a scenario where that works out for you, me or my next door neighbors.
Your little hit piece on Mr. Vina tells me all I need to know about someone like you. Attacking people who are actually showing promise of bringing solutions to our issue is 4th grade level antics. A small bit of research debunks that commentary but guys like you just love to speculate. Words like “it appears”, “rumor has it” etc fills that story. But guys like you and the writer feed off of hearsay. How’s that working out for you Mike?
So Mike, what is your solution? Does it hold water or are you simply on a self destructive path? What will it take to get you to answer a few simple questions?
Let me make it clear to you. We are in real trouble here so unless you can bring some quality commentary forward then you are gonna get called out for the troll that you are.
I call Clue and MEO out to show proof that insurance premiums are going up 400% because of the fire district. That sounds like the chicken little crap Mike is talking about. I read the article you linked. Nothing in it supplies documented facts, only hearsay. You know what Judge Judy says about that. The media reported weapons of mass destruction. Hilary reported a jihad video for Benghazi. You and meo are probably smoking the same brand as them. Show some documentation before and after on the insurance increase or go back to the hole you came out of. Come on, you and meo need to step up or shut up with this sky falling crap.
BI95, I call you out on some common sense and a fact.
You apparently live (yes I’m assuming by your title) on Bethel Island and now you have NO fire station within miles of your residence. Now I ask you a simple multiple choice question. Do you think your homeowners insurance rate is going to be,
A) Lowered
B) Stay the same
C) Increased
If you picked anything other than C you are in for a rude awakening. Insurance companies are in the business for one reason. To make money depending on risk factors. NO fire station=Increased risk=higher rates. Even you islanders should be smart enough to figure that one out eh?
If you can’t do that on your own than make ONE simple phone call to your own insurer, you wont have to look far, the number is on your bill. He or she will give you the bad news. As a added value to your question you might want to ask several insurance brokers, you will get the same answer from ALL of them. I have talked to no less than 3 and each and every one of them gave me the same reply: “Of course your rates will increase, who would think they wouldn’t?” You can get the memo either the easy way or the hard way. Some people only learn things the hard way and it appears to me you might just be one of those. I’m not, nor am I the one that needs convincing. It’s not my job or Buy a clues job to try to sell common sense to those that are lacking.
There is only one question, Do you really need proof or are you just yanking your own chain?
BI95, a simple phone call to the Chief to ask for a copy and you too can have one. Before and after numbers are right there. That is if you can read simple English, which is not a given based on your track record here.
Aren’t you the same idiot who was insisting 3 and 4 years ago that stations weren’t really going to close and it was all just fear mongering? How did that work out, btw?
I can read the copy on my computer screen just fine and the schoolyard challenge thing doesn’t impress me. You’ll be creating another in your long string of aliases soon enough when you discover you are wrong.
You need the Chief’s number or can you figure it out for yourself?
Its ironic that you talk about the lack of “education” us dimwits received on the last 2 failed attempts at a ballot initiative. Remind me who wrote, worded, promoted and placed the initiative in the ballot in the first place? So, a third try with the same brain trust will be the charm right?
Dude, I would really like to have all sorts of fire stations on call and within seconds of anything but that is not the reality given the constraints of the funds to support it. The fact is the system is broken. ALL of “public safety”, be it police or fire have an unsustainable model that will sooner or later come to a break point do to billions of unfunded liabilities and the like; ECCFPD is already there. And yes myself and the other uninformed voters have said enough is enough and we are not going to throw more money at a broken system.
So what’s your end game, Mike? Seriously asking.
You’ve decided to just let it go to hell, take the insurance rate hit, the property value hit and the overall quality of life hit. The service level continues to degrade.
Then what?
Plan B? Exit Plan? Or just going to take what the circumstances hand you?
Well, station closures are old news and my insurance rate is still the same, my property value is still climbing and the quality of life is great the same today as it was yesterday as it will tomorrow. I will and have chose to take what circumstances hand me. Thanks.
So Mike, when is the last time you called 911? I Hope you won’t have to today or tommorow. Life may not be so great then.
Buy a Clue, Mike has no plan. He is just here to troll. Time to stop feeding him.
Reality is going to set him straight in a very short time. Just watch and remember, “you can’t fix stupid”.
Let me spell it out for you. There is no solution. There is no plan. The district is what it is and we are stuck with what we have. Other than new taxes er, revenue whats your plan?
Mr. Johnson, there does appear to be a solution on the horizon. That’s what the task force and temporary bridge funding from the cities and county is all about. You may not like the plan or it may not be your plan, but it is out there and it’s gaining momentum. In my opinion it’s the only realistic plan because it adresses short and long term solutions. Since its been shown that all the cost reduction has been accomplished and we in east county do not pay as other portions of the county do. It’s revenue that’s missing. Only we can fix that. Denial is no longer an option if we cannot live without service. To me it’s pretty simple. I want to protect my family, my home and my neighborhood. How’s that for a plan?
Mike,
Obvious to me that you have overlooked a thing or two. The last two ballot measure were brought to you by the fire district. This time around there is a whole new team of players including a task force with what appears to be a much better approach. There also Is a much larger unified “brain trust”. The third time is not only a charm but in case you haven’t realized it, it’s your last chance. You come across to me as someone that wants the district to fail. You don’t even have the most basic facts straight-there is no unfunded liability in the district. The district is broken because of a lack of revenue, not expenditures. It’s not a guarded secret! You are proving that you are nothing more than a shill with your half baked commentary. I wonder how you will feel when you get your first increase in insurance.
I asked you earlier, what is your solution? Time to stop dodging the question. Until you answer that, I have no interest sparing with you. You simply aren’t worth my time and are wasting everyone else’s.
Comments are closed.