So sorry to be the bearer of bad news. The preliminary 2010/11 budget for the Big Bear Lake Fire District is projected to have a shortfall of $881,480. Revenues will need to be increased and/or expenses reduced so that our budget can be balanced. This could mean a parcel assessment tax or reduction in services.
This large deficit will result in some tough choices. As we all know, these are rough economic times. In addition to reduced income, many of us citizens also face increases in electric and water rates as well as the prospect for additional property assessments (i.e. the school district needs $3 million for 2010/11 and likely beyond).
The apparent alternative to additional taxes would be a reduction in services. Let’s consider what this could mean. For Fire Districts, “reduction in services” typically results in “increased response times.” Response times longer than 4 minutes increases the chances that a house on fire will be destroyed or that a cardiac arrest or stroke could prove fatal. What a choice:
Higher Taxes or Higher Death Statistics!
Creative Alternatives?
As an elected official, I’m willing to live with hard choices. But before I agree to either raise taxes or reduce services, I want to be absolutely certain that all solutions have been fully explored. And, there may be some ways that we can avoid raising taxes while maintaining quality services. In fact, there are two promising ideas that I’ve heard batted-around by citizens (as well as public officials) for some time.
Fire Department Merger
The first would be merging the BBLake Fire Department with the BBCity-CSD Fire Department and possibly with County Fire in Fawnskin. Mergers usually result in cost-savings through: Elimination of unneeded administrative and higher-level staff; Economies of scale; Reduced need for surplus equipment; and Elimination of unnecessary facilities (i.e. buildings) when jurisdictions overlap.
A Fire Department merger would not likely fix our 2010/11 budget. But merger could bridge budget gaps going into the future. And it is my understanding that future government revenue sources are anticipated to be quite scarce.
Ski Resort Assessment
A second possible solution involves a fire department service that is possibly undercompensated by a major customer. During the winter season, the Big Bear Lake Fire Department provides Emergency Medical Tech (EMT) and Paramedic services for skiers at Snow Summit and Bear Mountain ski resorts. Due to winter skiing accidents, medical calls increase significantly as compared to off-season. This necessitates additional firefighter/EMT personnel costs, equipment and vehicle wear & tear, supply usage, and the rental of a temporary fire/EMT station on Moonridge Road to be closer to the resorts.
I understand that the only compensation for these emergency “runs” comes from the skier, typically their insurance. I also understand that the skier/insurance compensation is considerably lower than the cost of providing these EMT “runs.” So, who pays for the difference? The taxpayers!
And, who benefits? I understand that, since the ski resorts can rely upon the Fire Departments to provide EMT and ambulance service (and the hospital’s Emergency Room), they don’t have to go through the expense of providing their own medical services. Just how much do they save? It might be worth finding out. It is possible that this solution could have a positive effect upon the 2010/11 budget as well as budgets in the future.
As an elected official who represents your interests, I intend to pursue this matter with creativity and an open mind. I cannot be certain that these two ideas--or any others, will or will not work until questions are asked and answers are given.
Keeping Track of this Important Matter
First meeting: Wednesday, April 14th 9am, City Hall.
- Attend the meeting: Agenda at Fire District Agenda 4-14-10
- Watch it live on Channel 97 or repeated (if you have Charter Cable)
- Watch it live at http://www.citybigbearlake.com/ or watch it later “on demand”
- Sign-up for my follow-up blogs and/or e-mails
Your comments and opinions are valuable!
7 comments:
Seems to me that spending beyond our means helped cause the current economy. Most of us taxpayers are now working more for less money and spending less. I guess it's too much to ask the same of our tax paid employees. So just give us one more reason to not want to own property or do business in Big Bear! Yeah, that seems to be the answer.
It's up to the agencies who are crying about money shortfalls to take responsibility for their own budgets and cut from within to solve their deficits when , quite basically, it’s really their problem to begin with.
It’s time for someone other than the tax payers to deal with the cause of overspending. The days of inflated revenues from a false overinflated economy are gone and so should be the spending that accompanied it.
Pass the ball back to the Fire District and tell them to deal with it because the people are tired of fixing their problems for them. I would think the City Council has more pressing problems like maintaining a community that will be more conducive to its core business of tourism.
After all, agencies as large and powerful as the Fire District have their own qualified financial planners – let them deal with the problem internally other than taking the easy way out and asking for more money from people who must now come to grips with repaying obscene national and state deficits and the rapidly growing inflation that is taking a very dramatic toll on their ability to survive.
This response was sent to my e-mail by the author. He gave his permission to print it on this blog in his own name.
MK
********************************
HERE WE GO AGAIN. PUT IT ALL ON THE BACKS OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITH ANOTHER TAX. THIS ONE TO SUPPORT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. YES THEY ARE DESERVING AND MOST NEEDED. BUT I SAY LETS START MAKING THE PEOPLE USING THE SLOPES, THE WATER SKIERS AND HIKERS PAY FOR THEIR CLUMSINESS CARELESSNESS OR STUPIDITY AND PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE FOR OUR FIRE SERVICES.THAT WOULD CUT A BIG CHUNK OUT OF THEIR DEFICET.
I HAVE SAT IN FRONT OF THIS COUNCIL MANY TIMES AND HEARD EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU CLAIM HOW IMPORTANT OUR FIRE DEPT. IS AND I AGREE 100 PERCENT. BUT IF IT'S SO IMPORTANT, WHY IS IT YOU CAN'T FIND THE FUNDS TO HELP THEM IN THEIR TIME OF NEED??? YEAR AFTER YEAR THEY HAVE KEPT WITH-IN THEIR BUDGET. EVEN WITH-OUT THE PASS-THROUGH FUNDS THEY WERE PROMISED FROM THIS CITY OVER 25 YEARS AGO AND THEY HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ONE CENT.
HOW CAN WE KEEP GIVING OUR TAX DOLLARS TO DOWN THE HILL DEVELOPERS , BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS TO BUILD MORE AND MORE WITHOUT HELPING THE MOST IMPORTANT DEPARTMENT IN THIS VALLEY KEEP UP WITH THE GROWTH? CUT BACKS / LAY-OFFS MEAN SLOWER RESPONCE TIMES AND FEWER PEOPLE ON THE FIRE LINE. THS IS A SAFETY ISSUE.IS THIS WHAT YOU WOULD WANT IF YOUR HOME OR BUSINESS WERE BURNING? OR HEAVEN FORBID, IN THE NEAR-BY FOREST? OR BOTH?
W.A. "BILL" LO PRESTI
It's the Tea Party mentality:
First they scream "No more taxes!" Then in the next breath they scream "No more cutbacks! We need more money for our schools/streets/fire department!"
This response was sent to me via e-mail by Charlie Brewster. With permission, it is printed below.
**************
I think the City has the responsibility to control spending. Raising or increasing fees, utilities,etc on businesses is terminal to all of us. You have already raised TOT, utilities, taxes, etc that have effected us, or in some cases, put us out of business. Does the City Management and Council understand we are in an econmic freefall. and if we have to reduce Fire Services or start charging for EMT services for specific users, then it should be done. What the Council and City should be doing is helping us market and improve our attractiveness so more tourists and customers come shop in our valley.
I received the following e-mails from the author. With his permission, I have printed them below.
**********************
Councilman Karp,
A "fee" collected from the ski areas is another "TAX". It has to stop! Besides, Snow Summit is outside the City Limits. Do you have the legal ability to assess it?
The ski slopes provide jobs and demand for food and housing in our community. Visitors come to enjoy the slopes and leave money in our restaurants, gas stations and yes, sometimes our shops and hotels. Why would you want to cut off our noses? It's biting the hand that feeds us.
Government is always looking for more ways to collect more money. No! It's time to cut back the high cost of personnel. We are paying government "servants" too much. They are making more than the citizens they are serving and that is not right.
I dare you to publish the amount our fire chief makes... including salary, health care benefits, retirement funds, auto expenses and any other bit of tax dollars that the chief costs us. Then do it for the entire staff of the City government. Publish the numbers. While you're at it, publish what our retired fire chiefs get individually and in total. No, I don't think you would dare to. It's too - "personal". And too outrageous!
Respectfully,
Rusty Barnes
***********
The fire chief and firefighters need to wake up and smell the coffee. They need to cut and take a cut. Everyone else is!
Below is my response to Mr. Barnes:
****************
Hi Rusty,
I, too, think that the high-level managers are overpaid. I agree fully. But here is the question: Do we hire people who are medeocre and pay them less? What would the cost be? Cities and counties are banding-together regionally to address the retirement/pay/benefits issue in a broader way. If one city addresses it alone, they will get medeocre workers and the salaries will remain high. Rough spot we're in, I agree.
It is possible that the ski area is benefiting greatly from the medical services that the Valley agencies provide and not paying for it. If this is the case, citizens are paying for it. This is taxation as well and it would essentially be "welfare" for the ski areas. I know you hate welfare, probably more than you do taxes. Let's call it a different name: paying for the services and things provided to you. Sound better? I only want this to be looked-into at this time. If the ski areas are not benefitting at the cost of citizens and the City/Fire-Dept, than I'd be the first to move to drop it.
Sincerely,
Michael
Post a Comment