Looking for continued feedback from the public, the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District will be hosting an outreach meeting tonight at Oakley City Hall at 7:00 pm. The meeting will be focused on bringing a Parcel Tax between $95-114 to the District this June. The District is seeking public input.
Tonight’s meeting will allow you to listen to some background about the District, the future of the District, fire service models and allow you to ask questions to the Chief and Board Members.
The District has already held two meetings which were held on Bethel Island and in Clayton.
Upcoming Meetings:
January 16, 2014 Oakley 7 PM City Hall 3231 Main St.
January 22, 2014 Byron 7 PM Excelsior Middle School 14301 Byron Hwy.
January 23, 2014 Brentwood 7 PM Senior Center 180 Griffin Ln.
January 29, 2014 Discovery Bay 7 PM Discovery Bay Elementary 1700 Willow Lake Rd.
January 30, 2014 Knightsen 7 PM Knightsen Farm Center 3020 2nd St.
24 comments
I hope the district reconsiders it’s position as was suggested by a few. Open all the stations and go for what that costs.The nickel dime thing will never work.
Notice; To all East County Fire Board directors:
1. We don’t need another history lesson!
2. We don’t need you to “allow” us to ask questions.
3. We don’t need to be reminded of the future of the district. It’s simple, we are screwed.
As one of our fire district’s (ECCFPD’s) biggest supporters, I must regretfully say that I can not support the latest fire tax effort.
As it sits now, the tax will fail.
-The district has a permanent, long term revenue problem. A “patch” is not what is needed. A funding tax that brings the department on par with the rest of the county and surrounding areas for adequate service is a necessity. It is a “need to have” not a “nice to have”.
-The 5 year sunset is ridiculous and falls short of a realistic goal. This is based on the monumental costs associated with elections. The district does not have 100′s of thousands of dollars available spend on more elections. At a minimum, a 7 to 10 year sunset would be reasonable and most surely would have to be renewed. The problem is not going away.
-I refuse to vote for a tax simply because it meets an arbitrary figure that is claimed more palatable to some voters. This lower amount is no bargain and will put us in a worse position 5 years down the line.
-I will not vote for or support a tax that falls short of what is required to provide a base level of emergency service and leaves fire stations closed and communities without initial protection.
The recent “plan” is a day late and a hundred dollars short. The ECCFPD is not only in disarray, but lacks focus, a solid plan, and most importantly is missing a team approach that everyone can get behind.
The proposed tax is unfortunately already doomed to failure. It may have had a chance IF the district directors and firefighters, had begun with an educational campaign (at least a year in advance) demonstrating why the district has a shortfall of revenue due to a low allocation of property tax. Inclusive of a realistic amount of cost necessary to re-open closed stations in all communities could secure voters from Byron/Discovery Bay, Bethel Island and other affected areas. *Ask yourself, why would they vote for a tax no matter what the amount when their stations remain shuttered.
For a tax to succeed at the ballot box, 2/3 (66 percent) is needed. The latest direction no doubt alienates additional voters and draws a larger margin of failure.
I will not put good money behind a bad plan.
Spend time–at least a year–not a few months, educating the public. Put a solid funding plan back on the table that reopens stations and provides east county with the emergency services that it requires. Most importantly, get as many people, groups, agencies on the same page. (Right now, I see none of that taking place, and it is far too late to census build). If it fails, then at least you know you did everything you could to make the department function. It is the right thing to do.
Short of this, the tax will fail. It is a foregone conclusion.
I hope the ECCFPD board of director’s are reading and paying attention to these posts, for they have turned a YES vote into a NO. This is important when you need 2 yes votes for every 1 no vote.
Copy and paste again?..so tiresome, Got it, you made your choice.
David, I am going to keep copying and pasting rather than reposting a new argument over and over. Sorry if it offends you, but this latest ECCCFPD boondoggle is going to affect each and every one of us. Education is the key on both sides of this debate. If you think you have the answers then I challenge you to post them. Go big or go home.
Re-reading the salient points are the least of your worries. Got it?
I know this is a little of topic but I was reading the Oak Leaf newsletter put out by the City of Oakley. its a rah-rah, look at what we are doing newsletter. What caught my attention was the number of homes that have been approved for development and the one that they have started grading.
So we have a fire district that is going under and telling us that they do not have the funds to provide the needed level of service for the existing residents and the cities are approving MORE homes?? Bringing more people and demands for service to the area? At what point is someone going to be responsible, stand up and scream WE CAN’T PROVIDE SERVICES TO THESE HOMES?????? Its called leadership and I don’t see it from any of the council members or fire board. And lets remember-the fire board was made up of city council member until recently so they are well educated regarding the issues.
Its time to stop screwing around, band-aiding the issue and fix it!
Did they think of having the builder pay the fees for the fire department? That is standard policy when approving new homes.
Barbara,
It’s been pointed out before on this website that (believe it or not) a fire department is not a required service to be provided under the California government code. I followed up and much to my surprise its true. No requirement! Police and EMS (ambulance) are required but nothing about fire services. Basically they can close up shop. There is a lot to learn on this particular topic, including what can and cannot be paid for by developers. Staffing is one of the things that cannot be paid for via development funds. Much of the building you see going on was either approved a while back or the fire district itself did not negotiate for developer fees. Ask them if they are even doing it now…I’ll bet you get a blank stare! Developer fees pay for bricks and mortar (fire stations) which we have currently empty.
The issue seems to be more about what is apportioned under (prop #13) rather that if we can or can’t provide services to new homes. One of the posters here pointed out that new homes will pay the same as we do. So for the sake of argument would if really be fair to double tax them so that we don’t have to pony up? I’m not sure there is a right or wrong answer. I believe having more people helps shoulder the burden rather than drain it since more people pay in than actually use the services. Fire service basically works like an insurance pool where everyone pays in for the few that need it. The question is not “if” but when will you need it.
Sorry to go on and on, but I recommend that people actually take time to educate themselves. Call the county or your supervisors (they oversaw the district for years and I am told they actually built up several million dollars in reserve funds which the current board has spent down to nothing!!), Call the LAFCO agency that oversees all cities, counties and special districts. Then call the fireboard and/or attend a meeting.
It’s a real eye opener. We should all be really pissed off.
Excuse me if I am naive, but didn’t they try to ‘fix’ the problem during the last tax measure. They asked for more money to keep all the stations open with full ALS staffing….and it was voted down. I remember the public saying it was to much money. So now they are asking for less with the hope that they can at least give us the minimum and now people are complaining that it’s not enough? No wonder it’s doomed. They can’t please a bipolar society.
If people are really for having a safe fire department, then perhaps start campaigning on their behalf. The way it seems now, no one is benefitting. We need to take ownership of this situation as residents if easy county.
@my2cents,
Yes they did. Unfortunately voters were misled, undereducated and as a result the measure failed. More importantly, that failure did not change the need.
Let me put it into an analogy for you; you need a car to get to work. The cheapest car to adequately meets your needs is $1,000.00. You don’t really know if that is a good deal and you don’t really want to pay $1,000.00. You then start to walk off of the car lot. The used car salesmen says he will sell you 1/2 a car for 500.00. That’s right, it looks good from one angle and sometimes looks like a car, but the reality is that it doesn’t roll with only two wheels and won’t meet you needs. But Hey, it’s only $500.00 and you can better swallow that right? Sound like a good deal?
I didn’t think so.
This latest deal, is no deal and they know it.
The issue is clear that the fire board would rather try to put a bandaid on cancer rather than to be honest and address the disease. Do you honestly think they are they doing us a favor with this strategy? They know it’s not enough.
In this case there is a critical difference between the right thing and the popular thing. They know that too, but they are afraid.
p.s. Three additional thoughts-
1. They can’t please an “uneducated” society.
2. For us to have a safe fire department, it is up to the department itself (firefighters and fire board directors) to help educate us. This ensures our safety, as well as theirs.
3. Please join me in telling them loud and clear, we are not paying anything extra, to receive a reduced service level (the minimum, as you put it).
The last time I was on here Mr.Burk publicized my e-mail. Disappointing because it is something that he promises his site would never reveal. This is also why I do not get into blogging on here. However, I have been told by a few that my name has popped up here with innuendo and false information bad mouthing me. I think that who it may come from shows how meaningless it is. It will take all of us to team up together to make this thing happen. I stand by my.convictions of what will make this fire district work once and for all regardless of the criticisms against my name.
Because Barbara has come up with one of the most important points on here regarding this issue, I feel I must respond to her and others who may have pre judged me due to useless comments that attack people habitually.
Barbara and others,
Here is a sample of an e-mail to the Chief of ECCFPD and Board last year. This is one of many trying to push for all revenue needed;
Thanks for the packet Chief, ( I get copied on all agendas )
The presentation for service fees looks pretty informative. This would pay for one to two full time positions. On another note, I see the district is looking into facilities districts on new development. This is very exciting because you have heard me talk about this for years. East County Fire agencies have lost literally millions of dollars of annual revenue that can never be recovered because the County and the Cities have not backed the fire district in that revenue regard (except for Cypress Lakes that I pushed for back then before the merger). The cities are now revving up for more new developments along with the county. You and I both know they will rubber stamp them if not challenged. Just look at the recent Discovery Bay developments approved. That revenue is gone forever probably due to political favors. That just doesn’t help the Fire District. It only hurts it. If there is any way to force the City and County to participate as a condition of approval on all new development it may mean the difference for the future success or failure of the fire district. I’m not sure if you have spoken with your district legal counsel on the issue but it may be worthwhile. The implementation of facilities districts being established for new development is paramount to the district growth and sustainability. It also creates more of a hard foundation for revenue that could increase with inflation.
I will make a promise that if ECCFPD creates facilities benefit districts that are mandatory to ALL new development within its borders successfully, I will publically along with privately promote and vote for any reasonable tax proposition for ECCFPD.
If the ECCFPD implemented three things; benefit districts for each and every new home development ( say over 20 homes/residences ), created a cost recovery, allowed reserves in training, and passed a reasonable tax there would be nothing but unfunded liability to stop the district from being above and beyond successful both financially and fire suppression coverage wise. The unfunded liability could be dealt with over time.
That’s my ten cents worth, I ’ll be watching on the sidelines,
John A. Gonzales
Knightsen
Barbara, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink it unless we all get together and force him.
@John A. Gonzales,
I have never made you any promises that you speak of. I take your accusation seriously and suggest you not put out false information on “promises” that never occur. This site is designed to make folks aware of what is occurring in our community and have a debate.
Why your name keeps getting brought up, I have no idea. From the little I do know about you, its my understanding you would not resort to alias behavior unlike some other people that frequent this website to stir the pot as opposed to discuss.
Mr Burkholder, when posting a comment on your blog required info requested is an email address. Just above the space are the words “address never made public”. It’s your blog do what you want.
For why
I read that as a boiler plate template which is used on many sign ins. What it means to me is that “automatically” your name will not appear next to your screen name. That’s the only promise that is implied to me. I can only imagine that the proprietor of this site can not only see your email and IP address but as you said, can do whatever he wants.
I’m really not sure I ever saw what Mr. Gonzales is accusing ECT of and I look at this website often.
Don’t like it, don’t post. It’s pretty simple.
Mr. Burk please look at your site that asks for an email. Next to the box it says ” addresses never made public ” now go to the last comment you made about me when the subject was the sheriff. You posted ” this comment came from Jagktac…. . I took that very seriously too.
I have a copy, check your history on the site.
John A Gonzales
Knightsen
What’s really important is this issue of fire,
@John,
It’s part of the template and its not shown upon a post–it doesn’t mean I won’t show it to make a point–for example, I cleared your name by highlighting you were not making enormous posts, but it was someone else with your same name. You can’t have it both ways. I am trying to accommodate you, but now you seem to be taking advantage of that. This is a topic that will go around in circles so I will just apologize now and save us some time.
Correct, lets stick to fire.
John, noticed that your email (as you posted it) states jagktac. You were removed from KTAC (Knightsen Town Advisory Council) years ago correct? (Yeah, I asked around). Who are you trying to fool?
For someone who claims they don’t troll here, I find it very strange that you keep copies of certain exchanges. Your post was odd and your letter to the fire chief is nothing short of meddling. (I’ll bet it’s not the first time you offered up your unsolicited advice). You really wonder why he and the fire department isn’t taking up your demands? Isn’t it obvious?
@ John A Gonzales,
For a guy that is worried about anonymity, why the hell are you posting your full name accompanied with your town? Were you pissing and moaning just to hear yourself whine?
You sure spent a lot of time crying about nothing if you really felt “what’s really important is this issue of fire,” (sic).
@Bonewood,
I may have agreed with you on this subject but most of the time you degrade yourself trying to continue stirring up crap with people. All your comment will do is start another fight that breaks down ECTs credibility.Throw crap like that out to me and we can go around a few times.
ECV Brother or should I call you John? You have become so very predictable.
In case you didn’t notice, you just outed yourself dummy.
As for your threat, I welcome the opportunity to go a few rounds with you. Wouldn’t be the first and definitely wont be the last. I’ve done a little checking up on your behavior and record. You don’t want to start what you can’t possibly finish.
So the question is, do you want to push your luck?
B-Wood,
I see you figured out the obvious. ECV’s Brother could be one clown or as many as 3 of the local kooks. They tend to rely on each other to provide cover. Ironically it never ends well for them. Crazy and frustration are both difficult to hide.
Case in point; I had to laugh when I read John Gonzales’ defense and accompanied letter to the fire district. While Batshit crazy comes to mind, I thought I would share some other observations.
As was pointed out, Mr. Gonzales has written numerous letters and emails that have been ignored. He said it himself; “This is one of many trying to push for all revenue needed”. Apparently he gets over involved to the point in which he frustrates everyone….including himself.
Clearly he doesn’t comprehend how taxing efforts, assessments, time lines or the economic environment work. Does he believe anyone can simply extort money from developers? More importantly, the fire district has never needed “permission” from either the cities or the county to seek funding. However, when current property is being foreclosed on, it makes no sense for anyone to demand more $$ from new development-which has been almost nonexistent over the last few years.
Red flags went up when reading his ramblings. He tries to identify himself as the one that taxed Cypress Lakes, as proof that he wants “other people” to pay twice for the services that he enjoys. He completely loses me with tag lines like “rubber stamp” and “political favors”. Sorry Mr. Gonzales but this ain’t the 1950’s and this isn’t Chicago.
I wonder if he really believes the district is in any position to force cities or counties into his agenda? The tone of his letter and comments is telling, where he used the word “force” twice and mandatory as well. I have heard from the community that he doesn’t work well with others, perhaps this was some insight;
-“If there is any way to force the City and County to participate as a condition of approval”
-“you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink it unless we all get together and force him”
This was the topper;
“I will make a promise that if ECCFPD creates facilities benefit districts that are mandatory to ALL new development within its borders successfully, I will publically along with privately promote and vote for any reasonable tax proposition for ECCFPD.” Wow, he “almost” pledges his support if everyone but him are mandatorily taxed! His slight of hand was using the verbiage “reasonable tax proposition” incase he needs to opt out. What he is also saying is he not going to support a reasonable tax unless its mandatory that others pay extra on top of that. Nice…
Not sure I really care who he is, as his own points work against him. They always do.
B-Wood, I enjoyed your postings about why you are a no vote for the latest fire tax. (I have to agree)
Oh and I wouldn’t worry about “ECV’s Brothers” juvenile threats. He is big on calling people names, like “Bonewood”. Bonewood? Really? One usually has to frequent a bowling alley to meet someone of his caliber. Makes you wonder what drives him to take time away from playing his video games to troll here.
@Bonewood,
You are simply a lonely fool.
ECVs brother,
Sorrrrrry dude, but that is only your reflection in the mirror.
Nice try!
Lets meet up face to face ECVs Brother
Comments are closed.