HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10221996 - C69 i
C. 66, C.67, C.68, C.69 and C.70
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on October 22, 1996 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulmer, Torlakson and Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Convspondence
C.66 CLAIM dated October 9, 1996, from Robert Wood, Esq., 235 Montgomery Street,
Suite 972, San Francisco, CA 94104-3002, submitted on behalf of Howden Wind
Parks, Inc. for refund of property taxes in the amount of $49,269.97 levied in fiscal
year 1995-1996.
****REFERRED TO ASSESSOR, COUNTY COUNSEL, AND
TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR
C.67 CLAIM dated September 13, 1996, from James L. Cook, Manager, Property Tax,
Unocal Corporation, 2929 East Imperial Highway, Brea, CA 92621, for refund of
property taxes levied in fiscal year 1996-1997.
****REFERRED TO ASSESSOR, COUNTY COUNSEL, AND
TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR
C.68 LETTER dated September 24, 1996, from Kathleen Connell, Controller of the State of
California, P.O. Box 942850, Sacramento, CA 94250-0001, advising that its desk
review of the County's single audit report for the 1994-1995 fiscal year has been
completed and satisfies all financial and compliance audit requirements under
individual federal assistance programs.
*****REFERRED TO AUDITOR-CONTROLLER AND COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
C.69 LETTER dated October 8, 1996, from Mary Dunne, 3524 Oliver Court, Lafayette, CA
94549, protesting the proposed annexation of the Moraga and Orinda Fire Protection
Districts into one District.
*****REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, LAFCO
C.70 LETTER dated October 8, 1996, from Brenda Duenas, Secretary, Bay Point Municipal
Advisory Council, 3105 Willow Pass Road, Bay Point, CA 94565
****REFERRED TO CHIEF, CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations as noted (****) are
approved.
I hereby certify that this is a true and coned copy of
an ectlon taken and entered on the nWW M cd-SW
Board of Supero port on tpe date shown.
/
c.c.Correspondents ATTESTED:
County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the board
Assessor of Supervisors and Cqunty Administrator
County Counsel
Treasurer-Tax Collector
Auditor-Controller
Chief,CCC Fire Protection District
RECEIVED
OCT 1 51996
Mary DJ F SUPERVISO
3524 Oliver Ct. La fa TA CO. 0
October 8, 1996 0 CA-
TO: Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation
651 Pine St. Martinez, CA 94553
RE: Proposed Moraga-Orinda Fire District Reorganization: Agenda Item 8e; Oct. 9, 1996
Dear LAFCO Commissioners,
As an affected neighboring (Lafayette) resident and mother of children whom reside part
time in Moraga, I request you consider this letter an official written protest to the
proposed Application submitted to LAFCO requesting Reorganization of the Moraga and
Orinda Fire Protection Districts per the Master Delivery Plan dated August 30, 1996. The
following outline some major concerns:
Increased, substantial new costs that Orinda and Moraga taxpayers would be expected
to pay for the formation of a new, separate fire district that would duplicate the existing
administration and management services already enjoyed under county supervision. In
addition, this new separate fire agency, through loss of economies of scale, generates
concerns with long-term financial funding stability and overall ability to remain fiscally
healthy. Consider the important economic issues, which relate to overall efficiency
issues:
• The total paid personnel would increase by an additional full time Fire Chief and
Battalion Chief,with an estimated increase in annual salaries of $ 290,000 in the
proposed plan. Yet, the County will still employ a full time Fire Chief, to ensure
current service to the remainder of the county will not be undermined, which results in
non Orinda and Moraga taxpayers paying higher costs overall for continuance of
quality fire leadership.
• Increase in costly annual contract costs for: dispatching (possible one time County
charge to "buy in"to expensive communications system), non-routine maintenance of
equipment and facilities, training costs, recruitment and personnel costs, Mutual aid
"add on"costs(including expensive aerial firefighting fees),building and planning
code review services, weed abatement programs, Fire Investigation/Arson services and
Public Education Programs. All these management and prevention services are
currently provided by the County and must continue if maintenance current level of
fire service is demanded by affected residents and neighboring communities.
• Increase costs to remaining Con Fire customers contributing to funding and
maintenance of Con Fires current level of service. Splitting the fire districts into two
separate fire systems would result in substantial increased overhead and admin. costs,
through duplication of functions and costs, resulting in economic detriment to both
districts customers. This is not "streamlining"or efficient use of assets for the entire
county community, as a whole.
ems- 6¢ ei
� rpm
Social (safety) factors are potentially compromised as they relate to disruption caused
by the splitting of the current centralized, standardized operations of command and
coordination for life safety and property services. This could lead to loss of life, property
and protracted litigation by affected residents and neighbors, while creating significant
problems in the area of future service reliability and conformity between
communities.
• Loss of coordination of upgraded fire responses could undermine and create delays
that currently don't exist under the centralized Con Fire operations. The reliability of
rapid, efficient_fire response levels, as they relate to large resources available for
deployment of backup personnel, equipment and overall field life safety factors affect
Central Counties communities, the natural environment and business setting.
• Negative repercussions politically and economically could effect overall safety and
financial health of communities. For example loss of formally structured and intensive,
integrated, specialized fire training could lead to neighboring communities to doubt the
competency and abilities of the new fire district. In turn, the potential for changes in
the insurance rates and resale value of property in Central County could be a source of
disagreement (political infighting) between the cities within the new district and their
neighbors.
In summary, this reorganization does not simplify and streamline the overall governmental
structure for the County as a whole, it does not consider social and economic (long and
short term) effects on the applicant communities as well as affected neighboring lands.
Yet, most important, is the concept of compromised safety to our lands, our open space
and the human life of all residents of this County (not preserving, in fact, degradation of
overall synergy of current County fire services and related response levels). Finally, I
respectfully request LAFCO abandon the proposal, or at a minimum, request a detailed
cost comparison between the current system and the proposed alternative, line item by line
item in a budget form, so all contract and personnel costs will be considered.
Thank you,
oe
?Maber 8, 996