HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03021993 - 2.A �Y
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
°F Contra
�►
FROM: Costa•;
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator �aa- s
�= County
DATE: March 2 , 1993
SUBJECT: Report from County Administrator on Status of Protests Relative
to the Benefit Assessment for Fire Protection Districts
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Acknowledge receipt of the written protest level in each of
the County governed fire protection districts as of March 1,
1993 and consider action on the following options and
recommendations .
2 . Discontinue benefit assessment process as a result of the
substantial citizen concern, the number of letters received in
opposition and lack of support from some members of local
public agencies and community groups .
3 . Reconsider the benefit assessment process after the Governor
and State Legislature enacts a FY 1993-94 budget, so that a
higher degree of certainty regarding fiscal impacts will be
known, and the risk unit schedule can be reevaluated and
refined for both residential and commercial properties to
provide replacement revenue.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOAR6 COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON a y APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
The Board considered the recommendations of the County Administrator,
and ACCEPTED the report on the status of protests relative to the
benefit assessment for fire protection districts and DETERMINED to
continue the process, AUTHORIZED letters be sent to the Cities and
Boards of Supervisors in the Bay Area urging them to join in
challenging the State on taking the property tax, DETERMINED to hire a
consultant to assist in reviewing options, and DIRECTED staff to
prepare appropriate recognition for Ordinda FPD' s retiring Assistant
Cheif Walt Luihn for his years of service to the County. (Supervisor
McPeak abstained on the approval of hiring a consultant. )
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) 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.
ATTESTED '9n"�,-- 'p, � � •7 3
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: S e e Last Page 1 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
4 . Place the current proposed benefit assessments on the ballot
after conclusion of the scheduled public hearing on March 16
at $0 to maximum levels as calculated for each district based
on:
♦ A five-year implementation plan
♦ Replacing revenue lost to the State in fiscal year 1992-
1993
♦ Preserving the existing level of service
♦ Maintaining capital facilities and equipment
♦ Providing for currently approved new stations to maintain
current response times .
5 . Place a reduced benefit assessment on the ballot after the
conclusion of the scheduled public hearing on March 16 for
each fire district which:
♦ Reflects a "sunset" period of three years or less rather
than five years
♦ Develops further cost savings from functional integration
♦ Provides administrative, and operational efficiencies and
economies
♦ Recognizes that some level of service adjustments and
reductions may result
♦ Allows for input received from public and private
agencies, community groups and citizens .
6 . Consider desirability of multiple ballot options for the
Orinda Fire Protection District that would either:
♦ Reduce the benefit assessment to the minimum required to
maintain fire services in the district as it is
currently organized (a separate entity) , or
♦ Merge with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
in order to achieve a comparable benefit assessment
with that district.
7 . Consider the residential risk unit designation to include a
square footage factor if the decision is to proceed with a
benefit assessment ballot measure.
8 . Consider desirability of hiring an independent outside
consultant to review:
♦ Organizational options for fire protection including
countywide or regional county service area and
consolidations, independent, or city operated agencies
♦ Financing options
♦ A shared approach for cost saving measures in both the
management and labor components of district operations .
9 . Declare intention to only levy benefit assessment amount
needed for each district to provide replacement revenue for
property taxes lost due to actions of the Governor and State
Legislature.
10 . Consider placing the current Riverview Fire District $29
benefit assessment on the June ballot to extend its provisions
to continue funding the existing staff at the new station in
Antioch.
BACKGROUND ON OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Attached is a schedule showing a summary of letters received
as of March 1, 1993 regarding the proposed benefit assessment.
The schedule indicates that all of the districts involved in
the benefit assessment process have exceeded the 5% threshold
that precludes implementation of the assessments without
2
placing the issue on the ballot for voter approval . It should
be noted that the statistics on the schedule reflect the
numbers of letters received and not risk unit values. It can
safely be assumed that a count of actual risk unit values
would exceed the counts shown on the schedule.
2 . Since responding to the unprecedented State threat to our
local property tax by initiating a contingency plan (benefit
assessment process) , there has been increasing objections and
concern on the part of the public, the press and some members
of local public agencies regarding the amounts of the proposed
assessments; the basis for the risk unit allocations; and the
methodology used to implement the process. In part this is
due to the fact that the benefit assessment process was
designed to enhance existing service and not as a method to
replace major portions of the budget. Notwithstanding, our
attempts to explain the contingency plan, protest letters,
newspaper editorials and letters to the editor seem to
indicate a lack of understanding and disbelief on the part of
the public as to the need for the proposed benefit
assessments . Accordingly, it would seem appropriate at this
time to evaluate the situation and decide whether or not to
continue with the benefit assessment process .
3 . If the current benefit assessment process is terminated at
this time the process could be reinitiated after the State
budget for 1993-94 is adopted. This would provide an
opportunity to explore the development of an improved
methodology for assigning risk unit values . This option also
is advantageous in that the actual funding requirements would
be known.
4 . The current benefit assessment process and funding amounts
were designed to restore revenue reductions that occurred in
1992-93, cover costs associated with the benefit assessment
process, and provide for a continuation of fire services to
the public as outlined in the attached schedule. The maximum
assessment levels were set to provide flexibility in dealing
with the unknown factor of the actual amount of funds the
State might take from local agencies in fiscal year 1993-94 .
In recognition of the potential that the property tax shift
may occur over a period of years, the funding plan was
designed to meet the needs of the fire districts over the next
five years .
In addition to replacing the operating revenue lost to the
State in 1992-93, the funding program provides money for the
capital replacement and maintenance program as well as funds
to maintain current response times by staffing previously
approved new stations .
5 . In recognition of the concerns expressed about the amount and
the methodology of the proposed assessments, consider reducing
the proposed assessments by deleting some of the funding
elements and exploring additional savings from further
functional integration and administrative and operational
economies . Under this option it might be worthwhile to reduce
the "sunset" period from five years to three years to make the
proposal more acceptable to the public.
This option would provide the opportunity for input from
interested individuals and groups in developing assessment
reductions . This review process should also identify the
extent of service level reductions that may occur as a result
of reducing the benefit assessment amounts .
6 . In the case of Orinda Fire, there is an additional assessment
reduction option beyond the basic reductions discussed in the
above section. Since the Orinda Fire assessment would
3
probably still exceed the assessment amount in the Contra
Costa County Fire Protection District even after reductions
were made, the voters of Orinda might prefer to be merged with
Contra Costa Fire to obtain a lower assessment amount.
This potential ballot measure would have to be structured in
such a way that it would not result in splitting the vote on
the issue thereby making it virtually impossible to obtain the
necessary votes for an approved assessment.
7 . The current benefit assessment process is based on the concept
of "standby and availability" for fire protection. What this
means is that whether a residence has 1,200 square feet or
12 , 000 square feet, there will be an initial response of three
engines and a Battalion Chief . This initial response is
designed to contain any fire and to keep it from spreading.
While it appears that more equipment and firefighters are
required to put out a fire in a larger home, in reality the
same response of three engines and a Battalion Chief is
provided for any residence regardless of size. Therefore, we
should be very cautious in reviewing residential risk units to
include fractions of risk units for various sized homes .
8 . The current organizational and financing structure of fire
protection is both complicated, not understood, and rooted in
history when the County was less populated. In order to
obtain an independent review of how fire service is currently
organized and what options are available for the future, an
outside consultant is desirable. We have been in contact with
two consultants both with broad experience and capable of
providing a review and recommendations on organizational,
financing and cost-sharing options for the future.
9 . The benefit assessment process was initiated by the Board of
Supervisors as a contingency plan to respond to the
unprecedented threat by the State to our local property tax
that supports fire protection. Had this threat not been
proposed by the State, this local contingency plan would not
have been prepared. In order to eliminate any confusion
regarding the reason for the contingency plan, we believe you
should declare your intent to only levy the amount needed for
each district as replacement revenue for property taxes lost
due to actions of Governor Pete Wilson and members of the
State Senate and Assembly. For example, if a ballot measure
had a maximum ceiling of $174 and voter outrage public
pressure forced the State to either abandon their plan or
dramatically reduce the percentage of property tax taken, the
actual assessment could be zero or some fraction of the $174
maximum.
10 . The current $29 benefit assessment in Riverview Fire District
is due to expire on June 30, 1993 . Notwithstanding other
decisions, we recommend that the $29 assessment be listed on
the June ballot to be voted on for extension.
Contact : Terry McGraw 646-4855
cc. County Administrator
County Counsel
Auditor-Controller
Assessor
All Fire District Commissions
Fire Services Coordinating Committee
Local 1230
4
Ln
Ln
LC) U) O Ln O O O Ln M N r
Ln (N O N O O O O Ln LP) ri
>i N M O N O O O O> a4
.-j 4-) 1 1 1 1 1 kII r i
U) r, 00 M O 0) Ln r-I O 00 N U'I O O
0 ;j m -V O .-i r d1 O N
3 O L0 r H "0 d 'H 0 419-
CN
4N M M o
r-i
3 d O O O d r r O
a) "It O O O d' 0) d' (N
•ri UJ O O O \0 M N tF)-
II r
M M O O M
W d O O O "Zr 0 d M Ln 00 O (N
> U') I I 00 O m O O fig-
a O .-i m N O 0)
FPr fR• H 1•
N
N U) 0 07 O O d t0 r-
-1
ri (N C^ r-1 O M l0 lfl 64-
r♦ M I M d' M I d' r l0 II
0 O1 1 1 O U) N
I; l!) 47 r1 r-i I Ln Ln 0) l0 00
.H O rl Q) rl t0 419-
a CN N . 1
{p• ffi• K} ri
l0 M N O N U)
0) O M M
ro O O O O o N r O r +1-1
r0 O O t0 O 00 Lr, I 1 II r 4-L
F: O O M O OD m O r. O -1 O O U
•r I I I I I I 1 00 00 O ri d ri
�4 O U) N LI) U) CN 0) l0 M Ln +0+ F-I
O in d 1 1 +�
l0 ri rl M ri N l0 U]
� a4 •ri
M Q
z. N w 0)
0 r Ln
H U) O O O r d' O 0 L!) Ln Pz4
H >i O M O Ln 00 O O 0 1 fi4
Ir�i Ln Ln O0 M Ln O O w (n O co 01
O � Ln U) m N I'D N r U) C- N d• N X ro
U cd %.0 ri "D r1 M d +PI 11
r? O d 0
Ua9• rfl• tfr r �
� •ri
O ri O M 00 O IN d 00 r $
H 00 Ln O d' O O 00 (n d' m
0 L0 M C') 00 O o rJ Lf-) 40+ !;
(4-1A y-1� 01 1 Cn U-) 00 M o O O M l.0 d' N •O
ro cd 0i O 00 r I r 00 Ln N 00 .-1 4J
F W •ri d' 1 L0 LO O Ln '-i ro
z Q1 �+
W ri ri ri o C) to
I
W CN H
CO M
(� Ln O Ln 00 L.0 d k0 00 M N (1)
F.J± I N co O 00 O ri ! 0) 00 O r1 >
4J a) M 1 O '-i M l0 0 d' co 0 r1 ri •rl
H 4-) r 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 H} 64• U) J-!
H a) •ri 1,0 1 O rn r-! ri Ln Lr) II O N ro
W �4 d U) O r (N O M •• 0) 34
W U N M N O r1 N 7-I 41
•L 0 �4 +fh O F.+ N ro U]
W �i ro I [
U U N G U
ro ro iro
-P r 4-) 4-J
(p 0 0) O O O O O dl M r! U) (d 0
0 >i O Ln ri O O O 00 d' 0) Ln -rd+ �4 a-!
u -P (N r 00 O O N N N m 00 II r0 .iJ
ro '5 01 r N Ul O ri r-i r .-i U) O O ro -1 (1)
74 0 Ln t0 U7 Ln O Ln co LD d N U) O 1:� +)
M 1.0 N IH N M -i N N O •ri ro
C 00 CJ N d' (N N N 1.0 ro a)
U (N M rl N ri Q,' ,4
f 9• F EA• lb
00 00 (1) U)
01 00 O O O d00 O 00 �0 •� r
O O LM H L.0 N O N 00 I~ W •i
ra rte O 1 0 C7 co d" 1 O L0 0 >
a) �:i 1 O 1 1 1 O 1 1y} r I •ri >L ro
4 (0 O 1 O N -i d' N (N !1 d N 4J +J U)
4-) r-1 w ri r O r 0 ri (d G
a) U) 11 M O N G }-j �J w
[A H o +»• 0 M 0 4J
H U U
N .!-! r0 ()
rfl i +
it z ro r-i
4-1 (d -P 4-4
+s r 0 �-i
^, +J a) coU
0\0 a) U a) 0 r, (d 4)
O 44 •ri r- E -P •r•I 0 0 N 0)
r-1 ro (d m m r- -P a4-H +j rO
+ G ;E L: W w u, � ro a) 41 s~ :�
0 a) a) a) +-J >1 0 +1 a (d 0 A
.P U] ri L tS 4-J �4 to ;b r♦ U U m +1 U
a) a) 41 Cyt U] -P f!) a)
0) •ri U rl 0 �D ro 3 ro .. m
r0 r-1 a) 0 ro �4a) 0) -P a) 0 �I ro
� a -1 � :. a1 4-J H v x z Wza -Nm
0 � 0 U r-1 r- 44 >i c ai - H .� U a) �
a) U) U) rJ O a) •ri a) 4-L 0 a) I� a9 . ri 0 •.
U) o ra > a � >4 ro> W a) 0 ro > u ro
ro La v 4-) 0 ro w a) 0) a) m � > U �i a) rO s4 rL;
as
L~ >4 a a-P PQ a a) A r1 C! W 4-) �-:
(n a) w U 0 �i ,sq •ri > V) •ri
M a) r4 0 F=i a) a) .L..! �I �4 -P •rl r0 Li) 0 ro S4 •r1 a) )-I
m U ro •r! w a) U •n a, a) ri A r i c.) 0 O a o
N > •ri U a) •ri > �4 ro U] 4-L a) a) •rl U)
rn a y (n 4-J L.Ia L4 +� (n0 > — --
rn In 0 a) ;:s 0 ro m •- - N M d' Ln Q0
ri U] J [_: aC z G0 U H L-a GA Q al -- --—
LETTERS RECEIVED BY THE CLERK OF THE BOARD
ON THE PROPOSED FIRE SUPPRESSION ASSESSMENT
March 1, 1993
Protest
Fire District For Against General Level
Bethel Island 0 300 0 15. 0%
CCC (Consolidated) 9 9,489 1 7 . 4%
Crockett-Carquinez 0 171 1 8. 60
E
East Diablo 0 1,232 0 11 . 6%
Oakley 0 418 0 5. 60
Orinda 2 575 5 8 . 8%
Pinole 0 85 0 5 . 1%
Riverview 0 4,035 3 8. 4%
West County 1 1,123 0 6. 2%
TOTALS 12 17,428 10
DATE:
REgUMT TO SPEAK FORM
THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 3
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressin Board. <
NAME: PHONE:
ADDRESS: CITY:
I am speaking formyself OR organization: r--5���C '�
Check one: (NA: OE: ORCAN17- TION)
X I wish to speak on Agenda Item # C9.
X
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers'
microphone before your item is to be considered.
2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone.
3. Begin by stating your name and address; whether you are speaking for yourself or as a
representative of.an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation, if available.
5. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.)
DATE: 3 o 2 L��
REQUEST To SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board.
NAME: �i�� 9� w PHONE:
ADDRESS: 0.� ��-, �, f' 7 ero ez� wt CITY: 4P17
7-
I am speaking formyself OR organization: ri (46 P—te
Check one:
(NAME OF ORGANIZV-10%)
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # . � t
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers'
microphone before your item is to be considered.
2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone.
3. Begin by stating your name and address: whether you are speaking for yourself or as a
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation, if available.
5. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers. (The Chair may limit-length of presentations so all persons may be heard.)
I DATE:
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT I
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board. �j f
NAME: lj �� S . ^I✓ tU
PHONE: .%46
ADDRESS: .-), ( 7- d1 f)pry CITY:
I am speaking formyself OR organization:
Check one:
(NAME OF ORGANIZATION)
'A
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # �f-
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the 'Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers'
microphone before your item is to be considered.
2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone.
3. Begin by stating your name and address: whether you are speaking for yourself or as a
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation, if available.
5. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers. (The Chair may limit'length of presentations so all persons may be heard.)
i
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFF/CE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
Date: March 1, 1993
To: Tom Powers, Supervisor, District 1
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
Re: Proposed Fire Suppression Benefit Assessments
Your February 4 , 1993 memorandum asked " [c]an the BOS [Board of
Supervisors] reduce the assessment below the noticed amount that goes
on the ballot?" Assuming we understand your inquiry, the answer is
yes .
The notices sent out for the March 16, 1993 hearing provide a
maximum amount of possible assessment per parcel . At the conclusion
of the March 16 hearing, the Board of Supervisors can fix lower
levels of possible maximum assessment for the various Assessor Use
Code classes of property.
Also, between March 16, any June 5th election and up until August
10th of this year, the Board can further reduce the actual amount to
be levied on any particular classes of real property for FY 1993-94 .
But whatever specific amounts the Board decides on March 16 should be
the maximum amounts of possible assessment in any future fiscal year
will so remain until changed after further noticed hearings and/or
the expiration of five years .
If we may be of any further assistance, please advise.
VJW:df
cc: County Administrator
Attn: Terry McGraw
df10(1): assess.fir