Home East County East Contra Costa Fire Board Agrees to Look Into Benefit Assessment Fee

East Contra Costa Fire Board Agrees to Look Into Benefit Assessment Fee

by ECT

ECCFPD

The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board agreed to move forward with the first steps into a Benefit Assessment to help bring in additional revenue to the District.

Monday nights actions allowed the District to move forward to pursue a possible Benefit Assessment by agreeing to move forward with an Engineers Report and hiring a consultant.  Upon completion, an Engineers Report will decide the benefit to the community and how much property owners would pay in added assessments.

Engineers Report—a report that study the proposed improvements, estimate costs, diagram the proposed district boundaries, and calculate a fair allocation of the benefit assessments among the benefited parcels in direct proportion to the amount of special benefit each receives.

The Benefit Assessment can be used as a funding mechanism for obtaining, furnishing, operating, and maintaining fire suppression equipment or apparatus, and for salaries and benefits of firefighter personnel. The assessment must be based on a special benefit conferred on real property and must not exceed the cost of providing such benefit.

Discovery Bay resident Bob Mankin stated that he is in favor of the idea, but urged the Board to understand the “major caveats” associated with Benefit Assessments—citing a 2009 California Supreme Court Decision which stated that its very clear that an assessment such as the one the District is attempting to gain much have a “permanent improvement”.

“If you are going to sit here tonight and talk about maintaining a 5-station level of service you are not really showing the public a permanent improvement,” argued Mankin. “Now the District is operating with a trust deficit with the public, recent polling by Local 1230 shows that 40% will no way support a special tax.”

He explained that with the District is operating with a “trust deficit” with the public because of past actions with Measure C, overreaching with paramedics on rigs and claiming the District would close stations when the FEMA Grant bailed out the District.

“If you are trying to back door this and say we are going to close down stations and have three stations, go get a benefit assessment and bring it back to five stations and somehow make that legit legally, you are going to run smack into that (lack of trust),”said Mankin.

Director Steve Smith disagreed with Mr. Mankin arguing the District finances are pretty clear that the District only has revenue to operate three-stations and that maintaining five-stations is a benefit.

“Without the SAFER Grant, the District can only support three-stations. I believe we fundamentally made the case that the baseline is three-stations and we are asking the consultants to evaluate what the real-benefit is to real properties in the District of having five stations vs. three. Example, a fire Department that can fight a fire with its own resources. So I am very much in favor of moving forward at this point,” said Smith.

Director Joel Bryant said that moving forward at this point is only moving forward with an Engineers Report. The Board had no discussion and gave direction to move forward.

In a separate item, the Board agreed to hire $114,000 with NBS Government Finance Group to do the research involved in establishing an assessment such as showing Proposition 218 special versus general benefit analysis, assessment rates and methods of assessments—NBS will help establish formulas to calculate each property owners share for fire protection.

Director Ronald Johansen asked NBS for a history of the 20-50 fire districts who have gone for a benefit assessment and their success rate and what worked and what did not.

NBS responded that “I honestly cannot tell you a fire assessment that was not successful… I am sure there are fire assessments that were proposed that were not passed. That would happen if there is a majority protest and you can’t continue where you don’t get a majority protest where you get 30-40% protest and the Board feels like they are hearing does not decide to go forward.”

NBS stated that this study will give the District a formula to move forward with such as a single family home vs. commercial structure.

Bob Mankin spoke a second time expressing concern over the statements made by both the Consultant and the Board.

“I am a little bit disturbed by some of the comments of the Board tonight and the ones just made by the consultant. There have been benefit assessments that have gone down in flames—specifically Oakhurst. Five Cities in the Pismo Beach area did not pass last year so there plenty but those are two off the top of my head,” said Mankin.

“What I am bothered by is that we are locking in mediocrity and doing the same thing with the benefit assessment as you did with the special tax. There is no long game mentality and no long term planning. When this District was formed as a JPA coming out of LAFCO you were tasked with fixing a broken funding model,” said Mankin. “You are not really fixing it, you are duct-taping it together. Whatever you lock in with this effort has to be thinking long-term. I cannot fathom the math that would have property value appreciation keeping up with your costs… you are stating that you are just going to be good with five stations indefinitely because there is nothing coming down the pike that would improve on that. I would suggest, and hope, that you at least consider this benefit assessment doing it correctly and going to 8-stations. At a minimum having your consultant look at it. It’s going to be a complex problem to look at as it is. If I was living on the east side of Discovery Bay instead of the west side, I could see the Station on a good day, if I am on the east side and your coming with me at me with an assessment and telling me that my response times are not going to change, you are not going to get the time of day from me. Its not about what you verbalize to the people or what you explain to them to your satisfaction to them, that doesn’t mean jack okay, its about what they think, what the voters perception is. If you don’t get in their head or put yourself in their shoes, you are done before you even get started. So think long-game please.”

Board President Joel Bryant explained that he could not agree more with Mr. Mankin.

“I think that we need to look at two options where we maintain service going to six to eight stations, whatever model we feel would be the most benefit for the long term that has a reasonable chance of acceptance by the residents,” said Bryant. “

Bryant rejected earlier comments about closing stations to sway the public vote only to re-open them as a benefit saying he could not imagine thinking that was acceptable.

“That is not in my registry. Going after more stations, providing more safety has always been the desire. As far as my concern, that is my desire. Until we get the Engineer Report, we have no idea what these numbers are going to be,” said Bryant. “We need to look at the idea of adding more coverage.”

Board Member Cheryl Morgan added that based on Mr. Mankins comments, it’s closer to the definition of a benefit assessment because you are actually adding stations.

“If you are going to maintain the service, you have the issue that you are really not improving it and that does not meet the definition of a benefit,” said Morgan.

Director Joe Young explained that he has spent a lot of time looking at this and is another approach. The study will highlight the value of service we are trying to provide and good direction on our next steps.

“The study is paramount to making an informed decision to make this District financially sound,” said Young.

Director Steve Smith stated that he is well aware of the argument to find a solution once and for all but does not have the patience for that argument at this time.

“We know we need five stations to hold the line to at least be able to fight a fire. But we need a stable foundation now. That is why we cannot afford to spend time looking for that final solution,” said Smith. “First and foremost we have to save a five-station model and get off this bloody merry-go-round we have been in since the beginning of 2010. That is why I want this report to go ahead.”

Director Ronald Johansen agreed with Director Smith that he wanted to move ahead with the Engineer Report.

“A Benefit Assessment really does not mean anything to me until I see the numbers to see if it’s even beneficial. In order to be able to make decisions this Board needs information and we don’t have it yet. That is what this Board is seeking. To move forward with this decision this is important to make sure we are making a wise decision,” said Johansen. “Obviously this Board wants a long-term solution, I guarantee this Board wants one. I believe we are putting Band-Aids on this, I can honestly say that. But we are doing so because we do not have any other options at this time. Time is what is necessary for the long-term solutions and what we are trying to do is buy time.”

The Board voted 7-0 to move forward with both agenda items with Directors Kevin Bouillon and Greg Cooper absent.

Proposed Timeline per the Staff Report:

July 2014:

  • The District receives draft Special versus General Benefit analysis and provides comments to the District’s consultant.
  • The District receives a preliminary engineer’s report and draft notice, instructions, envelope language and ballots and provides comments to the District’s consultant.
  • The Board of Directors considers a draft resolution, preliminary engineer’s report, notice, instructions, envelope language and ballot.

August 2014:

  •  Prior to August 8, 2014, the Board approves engineer’s report and sets public hearing date for benefit assessment.
  •  No later than August 15, 2014, the District’s consultant (or subconsultant) prints and mails notices, instructions, return envelopes and ballots.

October 2014:

  • October 6, 2014, the Board holds public hearing, after which the ballots are counted in a location open to the public.

November 2014:

  • November 3, 2014, the voting results are announced and, if property owners do not submit a majority of votes in protest, the Board can enact the benefit assessment.

August 2015:

  • If the Board enacts the benefit assessment, it is placed on the tax rolls by the County Assessor’s Office.

December 2015:

  • New revenue from the assessment enters the District.

You may also like

28 comments

Jerry May 6, 2014 - 9:28 am

As I said yesterday. NO NO NO NO NO and hell no! These benefit assesments are sneaky and unfair. If they want to have 5 stations I see no benefit since I do not get my station back.

JimSimmons42 May 6, 2014 - 9:30 am

Thank goodness I am with CONFIRE and do not have to deal with a dysfunctional board who cannot make up their minds. ECT thank you for this recap. I think East County should be thanking Bob Manking for his comments because without him, you would be paying a benefit without receiving one. He is correct and nice to see the Board wake up to his comments in asking for more than five stations which you currently have. No doubt in my mind the District gets sued over this if they try this type of tax.

Rob Saw May 6, 2014 - 9:31 am

I hate politics. They are going to shut down to three stations and claim five open is a benefit. I hate Politian’s and this is a perfect example of why they are corrupt.

EastCountyToday May 6, 2014 - 9:32 am

@Rob. Keep in mind only 1 Board Member is elected (Joel Bryant). The rest are appointed by Brentwood, Oakley and the Board of Supervisors.

Buy a Clue May 6, 2014 - 9:53 am

The voters will never buy the close to 3, reopen to 5 and call it an improvement scam.

The competence of the Consultant writing this Engineering report seems to be a major concern. How can you present yourself as being an expert on the topic and not be aware of assessments that have failed?

Stan May 6, 2014 - 10:05 am

This benefit assessment district (aka; B.A.D. tax) idea can be ended and voted down instantly by putting out the director’s very own statements. Let’s all hope that is what actually happens before this ends up in court.

“If you are going to maintain the service, you have the issue that you are really not improving it and that does not meet the definition of a benefit,” said Morgan.

” I believe we are putting Band-Aids on this, I can honestly say that.” – Director Ronald Johansen.

The board guarantees a legal challenge (lawsuit) if they decide to go ahead with a benefit assessment, merely because of seeking a lower threshold to pass. Especially with the recent station closures throughout the district bringing district coverage down to five. It’s obvious what they are doing and now they have made sure it will be extremely obvious to a judge.

Great work board. This would making sure we have substandard coverage, locked in mediocrity, all while screwing the public and firefighters at the same time! But hey, at least you can say you did something. Director Steve Smith stated that he is well aware of the argument to find a solution once and for all but does not have the patience for that argument at this time.

Talk about hammering in that final nail. They just don’t get it.

Poor Tim May 6, 2014 - 10:12 am

Benefit Assessment = fancy word for tax and therefore I will not support it.

Jill Thompson 55 May 6, 2014 - 10:17 am

Stand

Could not have said it better myself. For a Board that is looking into an assessment, they sure made a lot of contradictory statements about mediocrity and band aids. They should not be hiring consultants to do an Engineer’s Report, they should hire a consultant to educate them on how to speak during a meeting to not kill something before it even gets off the ground. These comments are flat out scary and it only adds fuel to the fire about distrust of a Board.

I will vote no without even seeing the Engineers Report based on the comments of this very Board. Good work ECT on providing a recap for everyone to see. I don’t always agree with you, but at least I am informed enough with what is going on.

ECV May 6, 2014 - 11:17 am

I have said it before. No, No and Hell no!!!! This is the worst harebrained idea this bunch has come up with to date. There is NO benefit in a district with stations closed. I cannot see any benefit in keeping us unsafe, under protected and below minimum staffing recommendations! The fireboard is headed backwards again. Why am I not surprised???

Chuck May 6, 2014 - 5:47 pm

Is this the Bob Mankin show ? He has done nothing but throw stones at any idea. What a sss disturber. I’m surprised he got that much in in the time allowed unless he is a rep for the union. Maybe he is afraid of paying his fair share. I think its one of the last efforts before they are forced to bankruptcy or consolidation.Next meeting just let Bob run it.

FrankS May 6, 2014 - 7:23 pm

Zero chance this passes. This is a worse idea than a parcel tax. Shame on this Board.

Jeff Taylor May 6, 2014 - 7:29 pm

Amazing, didn’t Steve Smith say a few months ago that a Benefit Assessment as well as a Parcel Tax would both fail? Now he wants to waste more money and time on something that will also not pass? I get they want money, but don’t say such stupid things and then go and do them.

Steve Smith May 7, 2014 - 10:17 am

I have never made such a statement regarding the Benefit Assessment.under consideration..

Steve Smith May 7, 2014 - 10:24 am

I have never made such a statement regarding the Benefit Assessment under consideration.

Steve Smith May 7, 2014 - 6:40 am

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What they don’t get to do is customize the facts.

On June 11th, 2012 after the failure of Measure S (the then-proposed Parcel Tax for a six-station model with Advanced Life Support, plus the Amador Contract) the Board of Directors chose from three alternatives to implement a three-station model (with three firefighters per station and Basic Life Support plus the Amador Contract) on a 5-4 vote. Absent any revenue enhancement, that became and remains the Baseline Service Model. The three stations remaining open were Station 52 in Brentwood, Station 59 in Discovery Bay, and Station 93 in Oakley. On August 29, 2012 the Board accepted a SAFER grant from FEMA in the amount of $7,809,480 to increase staffing by 18 personnel for a period of two years beginning in November of 2012. On October 1, 2012, the Board approved the reopening of Station 94 in Knightsen followed by Station 54 in Brentwood as the additional personnel became available. It was clear then and it is clear now that this was a temporary expedient; the baseline Service Model remained at three stations and 30 Fire Suppression personnel. Since the first meeting of the Board Standing Committee on Finance in July of 2013, we have maintained two sets of budget projections; the Baseline 3-station model and a far more desirable 5-station model requiring revenue enhancement.

Yes, comments by the Board Members were all over the map. That is called open public debate as mandated by the Brown Act and AB 1234. In the end, where it counts, the vote was 7-0. I would be far more suspicious (if I were you) if the Board’s thinking appeared in perfect lockstep.

Tim Seufert, the representative from NBS Strategies was the wrong person to ask about the overall success rate of Benefit Assessments. He is a government financial specialist and NBS is a subcontractor to the primary consultant team, TBWB Strategies. Ask Charles Heath of TBWB Strategies, whom I have found to be extremely knowledgeable in this area. Or ask Chief Henderson.

I get that many people would like more stations open. We will all see what might be possible when the Engineer’s Report is ready. However, a financially stable 5-station model (which can actually attack a structure fire) is a very real permanent improvement over a 3-station model (which can only remain defensive until mutual aid arrives). I still have zero patience with those who are holding out for the perfect solution for all time. Let me try a medical analogy. If I were an M.D. presented with a patient that was a) bleeding uncontrollably; and b) needed reconstructive surgery; I know which problem I would deal with first.

When the District was turned over to a local Board at the beginning of 2010, it was already in an unsustainable financial situation. The situation became a full-blown crisis when Assessed Valuations District-wide dropped by 40%. Boards have struggled from the beginning to stabilize district finances to support at least a minimal service model of 5 stations. We have a substantial and growing list of long-term solutions we want to work on, but first we need a stable service platform to start from. The Public is going to get one more chance at deciding this; if they turn it down we will have done our best and will work on what long-range stuff we can work on, while the Public lives with the pain that will result.

EastCountyToday May 7, 2014 - 9:46 am

Steve… one thing I would like to point out is anything less than 8 – your not going to be providing a benefit because response times will not change to Bethel Island, Byron, or Discovery Bay. Meaning it only takes 1-resident to sue and throw out the entire benefit.

Going to 8 should be the minimal service model accepted by this Board and that should be the message. Remember, LAFCO MSR says 10 stations are what is needed. So I would encourage you to go for 8 and hope for 10 at some point in the future with the planned growth in the future.

Bob May 7, 2014 - 3:47 pm

Steve, let’s start by uncustomizing some of the supposed “facts” you presented.

The process of hand-off for local control began in 2004. For completely dumb reasons(personal opinion) it drug on for 5 years and was approved in late 2009. There is no excuse for the power play nonsense that went on there. The Calif Health and Safety Code clearly spells out makeup of a fire board governing body based on population when dealing with a mixed city/unincorporated situation such as we have with ECCFPD. Jockeying for control on the part of city representatives was both selfish and pointless. No less selfish and pointless than some of the lingering rumors/suggestions that the cities will attempt to contract with the District and leave the unincorporated areas hanging. It would appear few to none of you got the message from the last conversation with LAFCO on that idea. They are not in the business of, and it fact it goes directly against policy, to break up an entity like ECCFPD and leave the outlying areas to fend for themselves.

The decline in revenues was realized over a 3 year fiscal cycle beginning in 2008/09. You were 2 years into that revenue downturn when local officials finally agreed to take over the District. Your commentary sounds like half buyer’s remorse coupled to a history rewrite. Late 2009 was the time to say you weren’t up to the challenge, not now.

You were handed a District with $6.5M in reserves. Granted, the decline and fiscal pressure was underway. But all the repeated claims that the Board of Supervisors just chucked a broken agency over the fence to you are entirely false. The broken funding model was identified well over 10 years ago. Either convenient amnesia or another history rewrite on that point on your part.

Nobody said your task was easy or fun. But you volunteered for it. Less pontificating from the dais about how hard and detailed the Finance Committee efforts are, please. It’s not about you. It’s not about me. It’s about the health of the District and the mindset of the voter that are most important right now. I nearly choked when I had to hear you claim you have explained the situation in sufficient detail that everyone can understand it. One only needs to read this very blog to see that is not the case. People still believe the cities or the County simply aren’t contributing enough to fix the problem. Clearly a lack of education to the voters on how the revenues flow is widespread.

The education problem is not satisfied when _YOU_ feel you have explained yourself. It is only satisfactory when the repeated bad information is close to non-existent. It also frustrates me to no end when I see the Board act like educational efforts are somehow limited to a 8-12 week window leading up to a ballot initiative. Your efforts at outreach and education should, IMO, be 24/7/365. In this day and age with the simple technology and information sources available, that is not a particularly difficult effort.

If you listened to a word I said the other evening, revisit the part about the trust deficit. You have a massive one with the public right now. Not just through fault of your own. Partly because of the anti-union, anti-government lobbyist organizations and partly from individuals promoting an agenda. But a huge portion that be attributed to ignorance. The latter can be mitigated, to some degree, with education. But not in the piecemeal manner in which you’re attempting it now.

As is noted by the ECT Editor, 8 stations is not any “perfect” solution. In fact, it still falls short of recommendations. The written record from meetings leading up to the recently aborted special tax effort clearly shows your 5 station model has deep roots in your Finance Committee’s belief of what the public is willing to pay. More so than any appearance of service levels. Case law from the 2008 Calif Supreme Court decision in SVTA vs. Santa Clara Open Space make it clear that formulating an assessment figure based on perceived willingness to pay DOES NOT meet the legal requirements of Prop 218. Specifically states so in the decision. I would recommend you re-read it.

I do not share your casual trust with the subcontractor who will be writing the engineering report. As I said at the meeting, for areas of the District dealing with station closures, how are you going to show a special benefit to those people in proportion to the assessment you intend to saddle them with? Both are absolute requirements under the law. Yet the Board basically just threw the request over the fence with little attention to detail or questioning. How does the engineering report even quantify when you didn’t bother to tell them your staffing goals? Proportioning of the assessment(another legal requirement) would be predicated on those goals.

If you want to see an example of how that can blow up in your face, just read this one:

http://www.cllaw.us/papers/west%20point%20paper_11-0806.pdf

Yes, those are the same Howard Jarvis people attacking that report who will go after yours. That’s also one of those ‘mythical’ benefit assessments that went down to defeat. You know, the ones that the consultant wasn’t aware of.

But the bigger concern, how can one craft a proper report for this effort when one isn’t aware of similar failed efforts from which to learn what went wrong? What is the confidence level of this Board with the chosen team now that you’ve had a couple of days to look at it?

Here is an even bigger tripwire:

http://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Member-Engagement/Professional-Departments/City-Attorneys/Continuing-Legal-Education/2013-Spring-CLE/5-2013-Spring-Sky-Woodruff-Update-on-Assessment-Re.aspx

Read checklist item #2, Steve. Which of the 5 stations are going to be your “special benefits” labeled ones? Because if you plan to assess someone not near those, I think you’re going to have a very difficult time justifying it legally.

105,000 people served by this District. Only 1 has to have the skeptical view I do or the wherewithal to initiate a legal action and you are toast. So why give them a gift wrapped opportunity with assumptions and sloppy work?

Just to emphasize the critical nature of having comprehensive appeal to your Constituents, look at yesterday’s results for Doctor’s Hospital in San Pablo. Incredible. If giving up your largest source of emergency medical treatment in your area for the sake of saving a dollar doesn’t alarm you, I wonder if you have a pulse.

Fire protection is a step down in priority in the minds of most people(pers. opinion). So if you are thinking you’ll push this past an approval threshold with the assumption that others see it like you do, you’re probably in for a very rude awakening. Especially with the backdrop of the Doctor’s Hospital outcome. Your easy yes votes which came from non-property owners in the last election are gone. You’re only dealing with property owners this time. Translated: mostly just the people who told you “no” before are getting polled this round.

5 stations in the eyes of the voter is maintaining status quo. That is not a value proposition, in my opinion. While I support the concept of the effort, I am a realist who sees it going down to defeat. The public does not yet value the Department to the point of stepping up and has to a large degree been misled with misinformation on the pension issue.

Full disclosure: I support the concept of benefit assessment. It’s why I brought the idea forward for the Measure S campaign. Granted, that was a largely different group of Board members who dismissed the idea at the time. But if this assessment is not crafted with deliberate attempt to over deliver on value, it’s done before it even starts.

In 'Da Know May 7, 2014 - 7:03 pm

ECCFPD Board Member Steve Smith,

Get your own house in order before you start once again with your attempts to re-write history, because the minutes, records and facts are at odds with your customized dissertation.

To begin with Steve, the saying is, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan. So before you chastise others for not getting things right, you might want to cease “customizing” your own opinions and peddling them as facts.

When it comes to comments, board members are 100% accountable for what they say. If this moves forward and goes to a legal challenge you can bet your sweet @ss, the minutes and individual board member’s comments (including yours) will become part of the record and used as evidence at trial. In case you had forgotten, many of us were sitting in the audience the night you spoke “on the record” about the risks of a legal challenge (being sued) if the board were to consider a benefit assessment as a means of a tax. The successive comments by other board members are simply icing on the cake, making a legal challenge to a benefit assessment, a slam dunk. But please, don’t take my word for it-bet on it.

Since you seem to be genuinely concerned about the Brown Act & Government Code violations, I’ll recommend again, that you might want to make sure your own house in order before putting our district in legal crosshairs. All of the unattended oversights have a nasty habit of coming out in a legal venue. Volunteer position or not, you all are responsible for following California laws, not skirting them. This is no more than a insincere effort on the boards part to get around the 66 percent threshold needed to pass a legitimate tax.

Let us not waste too much more time fooling ourselves shall we? The district has gone continually downhill and we have suffered a loss of service from the moment it was turned over to this appointed board. Status quo does not qualify as a benefit under current law nor does a reduction in services. You fail the test right out of the gate.
Try as you might you cannot re-write history. It is a matter of public record that the fire district was handed over with “Millions” in reserve funding. This was all spent down over the course of several years while everyone on this new board fiddled (around) while Rome burned. It has only gotten worse. All the rhetoric and customized opinion in the world doesn’t change that fact Steve. If you need more examples of failure one needs to look no further than the big roll out of the last tax measure that went “Thud” two months ago. How many months (years) did you wait while doing NOTHING to roll out a big ZERO? Come on Steve, get creative! Want another? How much of our money did you waste with the recent mailer, only to attempt to spin it into something it was never meant to be? I remember watching all the board members pat each other on the back while suggesting it was part of an initial informational effort and a first step in a greater effort. Where did that go Steve? I hate to tell you but it went nowhere. It is nothing now but a $40,000 mistake in the rearview mirror.

Let’s play real for a minute shall we? Over the last 10 years, how many fire stations in the district have we had? During the same time span of 10 years how long in days, weeks, months or years has the district been down to only 3 fire stations? Was it even a month? It’s a relevant question since we are talking about a benefit assessment and specific laws that define it don’t you think? You might want to answer honestly. A judge will require it.

Buy a Clue May 7, 2014 - 9:28 am

Probably not wise to open a rant by chastising people with the “customizing the facts” line and then proceed to do exactly that yourself.

John A Gonzales May 7, 2014 - 11:19 am

There are several ways to avoid a lawsuit and keep within the law improving benefit service for all with a five station model. Attempting to go for an all out 8 -10 station model is not realistically affordable at this time.The 8 -10 model is recommended for build out and with this benefit assessment it can. Any new development that requires splitting of parcels would create multiple additional participants. The benefit revenue needed to meet 8 -10 over time would be guaranteed as build out approaches.The current increase to the public can be justified by couple of ways. One being to have a guaranteed three person staffing model at all five stations unlike before the grant where some were two. Another way is to add a ladder truck and crew that far east county desperately needs due to the number of multi story commercial and residential buildings that have been built. Everyone knows that the fire district needs cash to survive a reasonable safe coverage model that is affordable and increases the benefit for all. This plan would probably be the last effort to salvage ECCFPD. People can either jump on board to support the fire districts realistic effort or as one guy said throw rocks at it. I’m just sayin.

Rob Saw May 7, 2014 - 1:25 pm

Mr. Gonzales,

You are a hypocrite. For more than a year I’ve read you on this website, the Brentwood Press and Contra Costa Times and now that you have an idea you like, you accuse others of throwing rocks? You sir are a punk and part of the problem why the District is in the shape it’s in. It’s fine to disagree, and in this case I actually agree with you on the benefit assessment but do think they should try for more than 5, but don’t play innocent here young man. We won’t know what is affordable and what is not affordable until the report is done. I don’t think a ladder truck should be on the list at this time considering we need stations and people.

John A Gonzales May 7, 2014 - 2:47 pm

Mr. Saw,
This is why I try to stay off sites like this. People like yourself who think they know what another person is thinking because they read or heard some stuff from a third person or party. YOU SIR ARE AN IDIOT.You do not know me or my thoughts of support for ECCFPD. Don’t confuse me with others. I disagree with your comment as part of the problem. Its people like yourself who make comments to separate people instead of joining people together that have destroyed this fire district. What needs to be done is stop this childish behavior for the sake of childish attention and come together as a community to support a suggested solution all together. Many solutions have been offered. This one appears to be a supportable one.This one also probably being the last. So you are either in or out. If your out STFU. If you are in lets all get this done.

JigsUp May 7, 2014 - 7:29 pm

I’m torn John, so help me out.

Which of your comments above would you estimate best displays that “team spirit” pitch you’re trying to sell?

Is it calling the guy an idiot or telling him to STFU?

Your attacks on the FD and the union stretch back quite a few years and are in print in several places. Nigh on impossible to unscrew the pooch on that one.

Grandpa Loves Golf May 7, 2014 - 5:36 pm

Bobby,

If you are so smart, why don’t you be on this fire board? You have all the answers. Quit second guessing them. Either be a part of the solution or stop being part of the problem.

ECV May 8, 2014 - 7:06 am

Grandpa,

Bob was probably smart enough to steer clear of this board. Would you blame him?

Only fools rush in.

jb May 7, 2014 - 8:36 pm

All this nonsense about how to jack up taxes is why CCC needs a white board approach to this and several other high cost situations. The county needs a NEW Public Safety function that encompasses multiple currently separate fiefdoms. This new entity needs to pay employees based on what is rational and sustainable not based on what others pay (read over pay). Once this new entity is properly structured and functional then the possibility for merit and other types of pay increases will exist.

The sheriff, the fire chiefs, the unions, the county pencil pushers, the politicos do not own the agencies they work for …the public does. If the public would stand up and demand change that made functional and economic sense progress might actually happen…who cares if the sheriff would not like being part of a true Public Safety agency; heck he’s a smart guy maybe he actually would see the value of unified command, control & communications. Maybe he would see the value of ‘true’ first responders who can arrive in all sorts of vehicles. Maybe he would see the value in less redundancy and more staff on the street with stable jobs and good career paths. By the way I’m using the sheriff as an example because some else did when this concept was previously raised….the same could be said for any public agency head.

If you all stick with same old same old you will always have the same old same old problems.

Forget seeking another tax that will not pass ….put your effort into a sustainable long-term set of solutions. Then if a case for more revenue (by a new entity) can be made the voters can decide.

For the record, I primarily blame the politicos and union leaders for this mess, I do not blame the employees and the volunteer (non elected) board members.

ECV May 8, 2014 - 8:03 am

In the broad spectrum of bad ideas I think this would have to rate somewhere between running with scissors and sticking your pecker in the toaster.

JigsUp May 8, 2014 - 9:01 am

And as local history clearly shows, no one and I mean no one can stick their pecker in a toaster when it comes to CoCo County issues better than Mr. Barber.

Jeff, we miss you at the meetings………………….about like we miss a bad case of hemorrhoids.

The hilarious takeaway here is you’re so delusional you thought your “visionary” bull$heet was worth posting twice.

To paraphrase what you’re promoting; you want to depress wages and standard of living for all who serve you while you continue to improve your luxurious lifestyle on their backs.

I’m pretty sure we got the concept the first time.

Comments are closed.