Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06231987 - 2.4 1O BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM Phil Batchelor ,��ntra County Administrator Costa DATE: June 17 , 1987 C�yWI�/ SUBJECT: Status of Referrals to Fire District Benefit ��� Assessment City/County Managers ' Group SPECIFIC- REQUESTS) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: ACCEPT the report of the County Administrator regarding various fire district issues referred to the Fire District Benefit Assessment City/County Managers' Group. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION: On June 2, 1987 your Board accepted the report from the County Administrator related to Fire District Benefit Assessments. The report provided information regarding the status of several Contra Costa County Fire Protection District financing issues. The County Administrator' s Office provided additional information not included in the report regarding the progress made by the City/County Managers ' Group. Upon the conclusion of the County Administrator' s report, your Board discussed a number of additional issues related to fire district financing which were were referred to the Fire District Benefit Assessment City/County Managers ' Group for review on June 16, 1987 and report back to the Board on June 23 , 1987 • Presented below are the issues referred to the City/County Managers ' Group with a brief explanation and comments or recommendations of the City/County Managers' Group: 1. Special District Augmentation Fund Distribution: Your Board wanted to be sure that the Managers ' Group understood the distribution of the Special District Augmentation Fund. Comments: As a result of the previous presentations and discussions on the distribution of the Augmentation Fund, the City Managers are well informed about this process. 2 . Redevelopment Pass Through: Although this has been discussed with the cities many times, your Board requested the County Administrator to ask the cities to identify any unallocated funds in current redevelopment plans which could be used to supplement fire services. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; _ YES SIGNATURE: �w vav� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON June 23, 1987 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I .HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I, AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES; NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. . cc: Auditor-Controller, County Counsel, ATTESTED County Administrator, PHI BATCHELOR• CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Clues of Concord, Clayton, SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Walnut Creek, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Lafayette, Fire Fighters' Union M382/7-83 BY DEPUTY Referrals to Fire District Benefit Assessment City/County Managers' Group June 17, 1987 Page Two Comment: The general consensus of the City Managers ' Group was that there are no such funds available to assist the Fire District. However, one city suggested that the Fire District could submit a request for funding to* its redevelopment agency with some expectation of receiving funding if it could , be shown that the project benefitted the redevelopment agency. 3 . Development Fee and Assessment Issue: The intent of this item was to obtain input by the Managers ' Group about the basic elements of the Fire District Five Year Financing Plan. Comment: The Managers ' Group has been deeply involved in the review of these issues and will continue to be as discussed elsewhere in this report. 4. Contra Costa County and Riverview Fire Protection Districts 1986/1987 Equipment Allocation: This item has to do with. the administrative hold placed on Special District Augmentation Funds allocated -to the two districts for capital items. Comment: The City Managers concluded that they were not in a position to second guess the District' s request for , equipment, the recommendations of the Capital Improvement Committee of the County Fire Chiefs ' Association and the recommendations of the County Administrator regarding the equipment items. It was the consensus of the Group that the capital money. should not be used for `ongoing expenses such as additional personnel but should be used to purchase the requested capital items. 5. Independent District Issue: . This issue was discussed in the report accepted by the Board on June 2, 1987 .with the suggestion that the issue be referred to the City/County Managers ' Group for consideration and recommendation to your Board. Comments: The . general consensus on this issue is that independence would not be good for .the Fire District or the citizens served by the Fire District. The Group felt that the district could suffer further funding problems if the connection to the Board of Supervisors was severed. However, there was some interest in placing this issue on the ballot even though it was believed that this could lead to confusion on the part of the voters and have a negative impact on the benefit assessment issue. The Group also discussed the importance of resolving the differences between the Fire District and the Board on this issue in order to gain the support of the Fire Fighters ' Union for the benefit assessment. This - issue will require further discussion and follow-up with the City/County Managers' Group. 6. Service Level Issue: This issue has to do with the suggestion that the fire district response time standard be placed on the ballot in November to determine the interest of the. residents of the district in financing the three minute run time standard' for emergency responses. comments: The Managers ' Group felt that the run time standard was a technical operational issue to be determined by the fire service and the Board of Supervisors and should not be submitted to the voters for approval. In addition to the action on the above new referrals the City/County Managers ' Group ' developed a final resolution form to be circulated and approved by the cities served by Contra Costa County Fire which would indicate each cities' support of the benefit assessment advisory election. A meeting has been scheduled for June 30 , 1987 to be attended by representatives of the Fire District, the City/County Managers ' Group and two elected representatives of the six Cities and the County to finalize agreement on the resolution as a preliminary step to presenting the resolution to the city counsels for approval.