HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06111991 - H.5 F
H. 5
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 11 , 1991 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Schroder, Torlakson and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisors Fanden and McPeak
ABSTAIN: None
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Hearing On Proposed Benefit Assessment Increase For
The Riverview Fire Protection District
This is the time heretofore noticed for a public hearing for
consideration of the report submitted by the Fire Chief of Riverview
Fire Protection District proposing that fire suppression assessments
be levied on real property or properties located in the District.
Terry McGraw, County Administrator' s Office, presented the staff
report on the proposed assessment, commenting on the purpose of the
hearing to consider the benefit assessment increase designed to
continue funding staffing for a new station opened four years ago, and
to fund staffing for a new station to be opened in early 1992 .
Chief Allen Little, Riverview Fire Protection District, presented
background on the proposed assessment.
Supervisor Torlakson requested clarification on issues including
the automatic escalator proposal, a termination date for reexamination
of the program, and whether all capital equipment and the building is
being paid for by the developer fee and not the homeowner assessments.
Chief Little responded to Supervisor Torlakson' s request
commenting that assessment fees were spent on operating costs,
salaries and benefits of personnel, and that developer fees were used
to fund the temporary facility in Antioch as well to purchase two new
fire engines.
Supervisor Torlakson questioned whether the second new station
would be paid for by new development tax revenues, and why the amount
has not been enough.
Chief Little responded to Supervisor Torlakson' s question
commenting on the loss of tax revenue resulting from formation of
redevelopment agencies in the area.
Supervisor Schroder requested clarification on what the
assessment would be if the money were received from the natural growth
and whether the cities should be requested to participate in the
funding of the fire service out of some of the funds they receive
through redevelopment, and he also commented, on the amount of funds
that the Riverview Fire Protection District has received from the
Special District Augmentation Fund.
The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared
to give testimony:
Joe Rubini, 11500 Skyline Boulevard, Oakland, representing East
Bay Regional Parks, spoke in opposition.
Phil Kamerer, 597 Center Avenue, Suite 150, Martinez,
representing Citation Northern, spoke in opposition.
P.A. Cresson, #6 Nautilus Place, Pittsburg, spoke in opposition.
Bill Hardesty, 712 E. Santa Fe, Pittsburg, spoke in opposition.
Joan Boykins, 97 E. Trident Drive, Pittsburg, requested an
exemption from the proposed assessment..
Supervisor Torlakson requested clarification from County Counsel
on a categorical exemption in the system and commented that he would
be able to answer the issue within the next couple of weeks.
George P. Girard, 3021 Longview Road, Antioch, spoke in
opposition.
Mary Brunell, 3301 Buchanan road #8, Antioch, spoke in
opposition.
Ralph A. Hernandez , 2718 Barcelona Circle, Antioch, representing
Citizens for Democracy, spoke in opposition.
Donald E. Peckham, Antioch, requested a postponement of this
matter and a detailed accounting of the use of the funds.
John Whalen, 1000 Ridge Park Drive, Concord, spoke in opposition.
Martin Semien, 2728 Almondridge Drive, Antioch, spoke in
opposition.
Joe Beckham, 2313 Clinton Court, Antioch, spoke in opposition.
Mike Price, 112 Blueridge Drive, Martinez, President of United
Professional Firefighters of Contra Costa County, Local 1230,
representing the firefighters that work in the Riverview Fire
Protection District, commented on the lack of education for the
citizens in the District as to what services are provided by the
District, monies raised in the District, and the impact of Proposition
13 , and he offered the services of his group to any citizen or group
who wishes information.
Joe Cranmer, 3682 Hastings Court, Lafayette, representing Cranmer
Garcia #II Partnership, spoke in opposition.
Tom Cranmer, 1776 Ygnacio Valley Road 206, Walnut Creek,
representing Cranmer Associates Inc. , spoke on the light industrial
assessment.
Henry Alker, 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 504, San Francisco,
representing the Southport Land Commercial Company, spoke in
opposition.
Supervisor Torlakson requested clarification from staff on issues
including assessment of a porch in a mobile home park, and he
requested a map be provided showing the location of the stations and
the response times. He advised of his intention that all capital
costs to set up a new station would be paid for out of the developer
fee or the City' s contribution and the assessments on homes and
business would be for operations. He requested a comparative budget
between 1987 and the proposed budget for next year to review the
specific cost increases. Supervisor Torlakson commented on the
noticing process for this hearing.
Supervisor Torlakson moved that the Board consider a 6 p.m.
hearing on this matter.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Supervisor Torlakson commented that he would hold an evening
meeting in his district and advised that June 24, 1991 would be the
only date available to do so.
Supervisor Torlakson requested exploration of what the cities
could provide to address the fire needs and suggested a letter to the
cities on this request. He also requested staff to explore a
termination clause for this ordinance and removal of the escalation
clause. He also requested staff to explore the possibility of two
zones.
a.
Supervisor Powers requested clarification of the difference in
assessing types of buildings, and clarification of the exemption
process. He expressed support for a meeting in the community to
inform people of the issues.
Chief Little spoke in rebuttal.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above matter
is CONTINUED to June 25, 1991 at 2: 00 p.m. ; and concerns raised today
are REFERRED to staff for review and response.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Sup isors on the date shown.
ATTESTED:
PHIL OTCHELOR.Clerk of the Board
f Super ors and Cou Administrator
8y Deputy
Orig. Dept. : Clerk of the Board
cc : County Administrator
County Counsel