The County Board of Supervisors saved the hardest decisions in
its 2011-12 budget hearings for last, including whether to provide
funding for a fire captain position that is focused on prevention
and inspection duties. The supervisors brought the Calfire
department back before the board July 21.
”
The reason this has been brought back is that you asked for a
breakdown of options,
”
said Margie Riopel, a management analyst III, who spoke with
Calfire Battalie Chief Paul Avila and Assistant Chief Phil
Mattson.
The County Board of Supervisors saved the hardest decisions in its 2011-12 budget hearings for last, including whether to provide funding for a fire captain position that is focused on prevention and inspection duties. The supervisors brought the Calfire department back before the board July 21.
“The reason this has been brought back is that you asked for a breakdown of options,” said Margie Riopel, a management analyst III, who spoke with Calfire Battalie Chief Paul Avila and Assistant Chief Phil Mattson.
Calfire is a state entity and the state funding covers forestry protection in the northern part of the county during the fire season, from June to October. The state allows Calfire to contract with other agencies, such as San Benito County during the off-season to help with emergencies and fire prevention.
One of the options presented to the board included $256,642 from the county for year-round services at three stations including Fairview Road, north of Hollister, Bear Valley and a station on the West side, in Aromas or San Juan. They approved the plan unanimously after 40 minutes of discussion, with the understanding that the cost would come down next year.
“Those stations are closed from November to May, but they would remain open to provide assistant to other emergencies,” Mattson said. “The obligation for wild land fires is isolated to North County. Issues of structural fires, hazardous materials – that’s your folks’ job – not wild land.”
The services the county would be paying for would include support from Calfire for response to structural fires, hazardous material clean up or other medical emergencies year-round.
The key question before supervisors was whether to fund a fire captain position.
“We will be giving up a fire marshal captain to investigate (fires) and assist law enforcement,” Riopel said.
She noted that the position is also charged with reviewing planning documents and inspection of new buildings. The county budget document notes that planning and inspections would be conducted through the Precision contract.
Mattson said that he knew of at least 40 different building plans that were reviewed last month, and said that a fee is charged at every step of the process, though the fees were not reflected in the Calfire budget.
“If we are going to justify prevention, maybe we can justify it through revenue received,” said Anthony Botelho, a supervisor.
Jerrry Muenzer, another supervisor noted that if the fees are collected at planning and moved to Calfire’s budget to cover the cost of the captain, the county would then face a loss of revenue for the planning budget. He said the larger issue was the impact that eliminating the position might have legally.
“If we don’t have this are we setting ourselves up for a lawsuit?” Muenzer asked.
“That’s the reason we went to a prevention (captain) in the first place,” Mattson said. You are correct in assuming that. We had issues with commercial properties.”
Botelho mentioned the need for services in far-flung regions.
“If you live in South County or at the top of San Juan Canyon, your house is going to burn down,” he said. “If you have a heart attack, you will die. We can’t have stations within six minutes of everyone.”
Muenzer noted that he would like to hear from voters about what level of service they want from the fire department.
Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz noted that Calfire asks to increase its budget every year.
“If I approve this, are you going to come to me again next year and ask for more?” he asked.
Mattson said he would.
“I will be coming to you every year for the next 20 years,” he said. “Our services are at 80 percent of what is recommended today. You make that decision, but we provide you with guidance.”
Supes contribute to EDC once more
As the supervisors finished discussing the last budget units July 21, they also met with Nancy Martin, the executive director of the Economic Development Corporation. The supervisors had to decide whether to continue a $50,000 contribution to the nonprofit agency charged with bringing new business and jobs to San Benito County.
The supervisors approved a temporary due pass of the $50,000, with De La Cruz dissenting, but not before a lengthy discussion with Martin.
Martin talked about some of the work she has done in recent years, including meeting with companies that may potential locate in the county.
“They can bring more than 600 employment opportunities, from the bottom all the way up into management,” she said. “We have been out there saying, ‘Look at us. We have a lot to offer.'”
She talked about showing prospective businesses that San Benito has a skilled-workforce to compete with high tech magnets such as Palo Alto and Silicon Valley.
Martin noted that the EDC is working with the Council of Governments and Community Vision San Benito to survey residents about how they get to work, what their job skills are and if they would be willing to take a pay cut to work closer to where they live. She said that she works closely with the Workforce Investment Board, advisors to the Community Development and Workforce department.
“They can provide recruitment, screening and interview applicants,” she said. “That’s a bargaining chip we have.”
Martin stressed that economic development requires investment and it is not a short-term project.
Supervisor Anthony Botelho said that the supervisors have not always funded the EDC. Before Martin came on board in 2008, they did not provide any funding for it. The agency is funding from other sources as well, such as the Hollister Redevelopment Agency, whose future is also in question as the state budget has moved to eliminate RDAs.
“My question is what happens if we don’t fund the $50,000?” Botelho said. “We committed to funding it for three years and then proposed going forward for five years. Is there a move in the business community for embracing the services?”
Martin turned the questions back on Botelho, saying that he should be asking what happens if they don’t fund it.
Supervisor Robert Rivas said that part of the reason Martin was there was because supervisors didn’t have a clear idea of what the EDC had done in recent years.
“We look around and nothing has happened,” he said.
He asked for more open dialogue about how the county’s investment is being used, such as quarterly updates at supervisor’s meetings.
“I am willing to give it another opportunity, but we need stronger – I hate to say accountability – but assurance,” he said.
Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz, the sole supervisor to vote against the $50,000 contribution said that the economic situation had changed since they first approved it four years ago.
“Four years ago we had good funding and good economic times,” he said, noting that he had expected to see some concrete evidence of how the contribution was beneficial. “We are facing a $3.8 million negative in the budget right now.”
Supervisor Jerrry Muenzer disagreed with De La Cruz.
“I feel we need to stay at the table with the EDC, whether it’s with $50,000 or less,” he said.
